I got a note back from the author. He thanked me for my note. The bottomline is that the paper follows AP style and requires him to use kph. He is aware of the issue but given no choice. The made-up abbreviation won't go away until we convince AP.
I was hoping that science and auto writers might be more easily convinced of their error and they would help put pressure on AP. Complying with the style guide and remaining employed is a higher priority. Pressure on AP has to be external. It will not come from within the ranks. However, the point remains that auto writers are frequired by the Styleguide to discuss performance (if they use metric at all) using a unit nomenclature that would be illegal if used on the speedometer of the car they write about (FMVSS 101). ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> To: USMA <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 7:16:14 AM Subject: Alfa Romeo Readies a Stirring Stateside Return http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576257300108686920.html?mod=googlenews_wsj The author of this car review expresses strong advocacy for the metric system in the body of his review, but then goes on to use the dreaded "kph" and mostly Customary specs for the vehicle. He does express strong support for liters per 100 kilometers as a fuel economy measure. I have sent a note thanking him for the metric support, pointing out that "km/h" is the correct symbol, not "kph," and suggesting one way to show metric support is to use metric specs or at least dual units for all specs in his reviews.
