Hello LZ, I'm here for the requested review!
My overall impression of this work is that it's well written and fairly technical. The points seem strong, and I don't know very much about cars, so most of my review will be about grammar and how to strengthen the wording. Since this is pretty long, I'll go through it paragraph by paragraph (that way I can also critique individual points as they come up if there's anything to critique).
First paragraph
This is a strong introduction, though I agree with your previous reviewer that saying "Tesla is doomed to fail" is perhaps worded too strongly. When writing formal essays/articles, it's generally better to steer away from saying something absolutely will happen, if you cannot guarantee it 100%.
As for wording, I have three things I want to point out. First, you use the term "independent car company" 4 times within the paragraph. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, it just gets a little repetitive, so if you can think of a way to reword it, I would suggest doing so.
Secondly, there are two sentences that change tense in a slightly jolting manner. Again, not a huge deal, but it's a bit uncomfortable to read and there's an easy way to make it more natural.
Brave entrepreneurs have turned the automobile industry into one of the biggest money-makers of the twentieth century. Many American men were attracted to the prospect of owning a car brand, so independent car companies became popular after World War II.
The first sentence uses the present tense verb "have", while the next uses past tense "were". To make it flow more naturally, I would suggest wording it like this:
Brave entrepreneurs have turned the automobile industry into one of the biggest money-makers of the twentieth century. After World War II, many American men were attracted to the prospect of owning a car brand, so independent car companies became popular.
It's still saying the exact same thing, but I personally feel like it flows better this way.
Lastly, the final sentence of this paragraph is a bit hard to read.
Tesla, while investors and consumers alike are intrigued by Tesla’s cars, the company is doomed to fail like its predecessors.
Try cutting out the middle to see what I mean:
Tesla, the company is doomed to fail like its predecessors.
I would recommend wording like this (or something along the lines of this) instead, to make it easier to read:
This company is Tesla. Though investors and consumers alike are intrigued by Tesla’s cars, the company is doomed to fail like its predecessors.
Second paragraph
This paragraph also has some strong points. I have nothing to critique about the content, but there are a few very minor errors.
In the two quotes below, there were some words missing which I've added in bold.
These companies were called “Independent Car Companies,” meaning unlike General Motors or Ford, they only produced and sold cars under one brand or name.
The independent companies were not highly successful, and dwindled in World War 2, leaving only a few surviving independent companies (Orphan Car Club).
And this quote is just missing a space between "Company" and "from".
The future maker of Jeep, Willys-Overland, was the second-largest producer of automobiles in the United States after Ford Motor Companyfrom 1912 to 1918.
Third paragraph
I only found one minor error in this paragraph, which was the word "in" missing in the below quote.
Not to be outdone by its competitors, the Hudson Motor Car Company was founded in1909 on the principles of “Strong, Speedy, Roomy, & Stylish.”
Also, I just wanted to mention that I usually include the year in my in-text citation. For example, if the source you cited was published in 2017, then I would put "(Hemmings.com, 2017). It's probably just a different style of citing sources, but I thought I'd point it out just in case.
The first Hudson automobile was priced at $900, considered inexpensive for such a high-grade machine (Hemmings.com).
Fourth paragraph
California based industrialist Henry Kaiser, whose company helped build the Hoover Dam and battleships for WWII, and the CEO of Graham-Paige, Joseph Frazer wanted more from the automobile industry, so they pooled together their money.
The above sentence is lengthy and sort of hard to unravel. One way to make it less confusing would be to divide it into two sentences, like so:
California based industrialist Henry Kaiser, whose company helped build the Hoover Dam and battleships for WWII, and the CEO of Graham-Paige, Joseph Frazer, wanted more from the automobile industry. With this in mind, they pooled together their money.
They were able to found a company and have cars rolling off the production line in a year.
In the above quote, I would recommend changing "in" to "within", but it's not really necessary.
Fifth paragraph
The “Henry J”, named after Henry J Kaiser, was a very simple car for its time.
A very minor detail, but I would suggest putting a period after "J" in "Henry J Kaiser".
It was a huge flop for its basic design and the fact that it cost more than a Chevy compact car.
Again, a very small wording this, but I would recommend changing "for" to "due to".
It was a huge hit, being the inspiration for cars such as the one in the movie, The Incredibles.
It would probably be easier to read if formatted like so:
It was a huge hit, being the inspiration for cars such as the one in the movie The Incredibles.
But that's really just a preference thing.
Sixth and seventh paragraphs
Honestly, I don't have much to critique for these paragraphs. Solid points, impeccable grammar. I did find it interesting to learn that
General Motors could make 1.7 million Chevys in a year, but Hudson could only produce 325,000 cars.
Eigth paragraph
The quote below feels a bit awkwardly worded.
There was no Willys’ passenger vehicle made past 1955.
You could try something along the lines of,
No Willy's passenger vehicle was made after 1955
instead.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean in the quote below. Did the two most popular cars become AMC Ramblers and AMC Metropolitans? Maybe clarify that for your reader?
The American Motor Company was profiting from Ramblers and Metropolitans, so they dropped the full-size Nash and Hudson cars. Therefore, the two cars became AMC Ramblers and AMC Metropolitans.
Packard made its last car in 1958 due to going bankrupt.
A cleaner way to say this would just be, "...due to bankruptcy".
Since Packard only made luxury cars, they were not selling as many units as other companies, like Studebaker or Hudson.
The comma after "companies" is unnecessary.
In less than thirty years, from two Volkswagons, 17% of cars on American roads were imported. Now, it’s 48%. On December 14th, 1987, the last AMC, the Eagle Wagon, left the assembly line.
The middle sentence in the above quote breaks the flow with a reference to the current times. I would suggest changing the wording to be more like this, to make feel less like it breaks up the flow.
In less than thirty years, from two Volkswagons, 17% of cars on American roads were imported; in modern times, it has increased to 48%. On December 14th, 1987, the last AMC, the Eagle Wagon, left the assembly line.
But that's just a personal preference and totally up to you.
Ninth paragraph
Tesla Motors was founded by American entrepreneurs Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning and was named after Serbian-American inventor Nikola Tesla. In 2004, Elon Musk came to the fledgling company and provided much of the initial capital support to run it.
That's interesting, I didn't know that Elon Musk didn't start it in the first place!
Tenth, eleventh, and twelfth paragraphs
Tesla Inc. and Elon Musk will have to change many things to keep the business profitable and popular. It has many factors in common with Tesla’s predecessors.
Very, very small suggestion, but instead of using "many" twice, I would change the second one to "several".
Automobiles are one of the most important things in a person’s daily life.
I would alter this sentence to state that automobiles are an important part of the American lifestyle, since it is not true of the entire world.
Tesla is the only current independent American car company and is going to fail just like its predecessor companies.
Again, I would use a less extreme wording, instead of "going to fail" perhaps "likely to fail" or something along the lines of that.
Overall
I found this to be an interesting read, and though I don't know much about cars, you explained it in an easy way to understand. Your arguments seem strong, I really only had little wording suggestions to polish it up. I hope you found this review helpful, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask!
Keep writing!
whatchamacallit

Points: 30400
Reviews: 346
Donate