The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

1995 Japanese Grand Prix[edit]

Self-nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria set in place. The article has been through a Peer review, before having it's GA nomination passed. The article since then has been thoroughly reviewed by AlexJ and The Rambling Man (see here and here). Since the GA was passed, and because of the comments made, I have improved the article more, and I feel it could pass FA nomination. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm assuming that http://www.formula1.com/ is the site for the governing body for Formula 1?~~
~~This http://www.grandprix.com/about.html site has won awards for its newsletter?~~
~~Am I correct that http://www.autosport.com/ this site publishes a magazine?~~
~~http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/ says at the bottom that it is a blog. What makes it reliable?~~ (Note: I've removed this source. D.M.N. (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
And http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/?

What makes http://www.chicanef1.com/main.pl a reliable site?

Likewise http://www.f1db.com/tiki-index.php?

What makes http://www.gpracing.net192.com/home.cfm a reliable site?

Likewise http://www.galeforcef1.com/?

All the links check out with the link checker tool Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Responses and clarifications -- ChicaneF1.com is a large database of accurate Formula One information that is regarded fairly well. F1DB is likewise a database like ChicaneF1. Autosport.com is the website for Autosport. Formula1.com is the governing body main site for Formula One. Do you have any other concerns about sourcing? Did you look at how these sources are used (like for database connections) or did you just decide to pick apart the source list without overview of it? Guroadrunner (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do look at the sources and how they are used. I'm sorry if you're upset, but there is no need to get testy at me. I'm not very knowledgable about Formula 1 racing, and it's better to ask a question and make sure that something like www.formula1.com actually is what I thought it was. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just was surprised that a standard database and some other sites, which are regarded as reliable, is questioned as a reliable source. Also, I've had a bad recent few months overall so I'm likely to snap at people and things, so sometimes I get rough with people. Sorry about that. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for absolute clarification, Formula1.com is the website of the sports commercial rights holder, Formula One Management, not the governing body. Even so, it is very much a reliable source in the situations for which it is used as reference in this article. GrandPrix.com is a website run by journalist Joe Saward who is the former Grand Prix Editor of Autosport magazine and currently holds an official press pass for F1 events. Therefore it also meets WP:RS falling under "News organizations". Galeforcef1.com in addition to it's results service was formerly the host of AtlasF1 (now part of Autosport) and also hosted the official Pacific Grand Prix team (now defunct) website. AlexJ (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GPRacing 192 has race reports for each individual races, along with qualifying & race times, along with quotes from other drivers on the race. F1Fanatic.co.uk isn't the most reliable site ever, yet is does have reviews of every season as an overview, which helps to cross check with other references. If you believe any of the above are unreliable (although I am bound to disagree), I will remove it from the article. D.M.N. (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment F1fanatic is a blog, so shouldn't be used as a reference. I'm not particularly familiar with GPUpdate, but it seems to be a legit news media outlet (see 'About us' from front page). GPracing192.net is a good resource, but seems to be unmaintained these days. If the same info can be found on another site, perhaps you should replace any GPracing192 refs (just because I'm worried that one day the site will go AWOL. According to the Library, Diniz has the 1995 Autocourse, so you could perhaps ask him to fill in any gaps due to removing F1fanatic.co.uk. 4u1e (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.M.N. asked me about the AUTOCOURSE last week. I've just got back from holiday, so I'll have a look later today.-- Diniz (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AUTOCOURSE refs added. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left these outside the resolved box mainly because right now I'm just seeing statements that "it is well regarded" not specifics on what makes them reliable. How do they obtain their sources? Do you have news stories or other sources that state that they are a reliable source? One site, the GPracing192.net someone said it doesn't seem to be maintained any longer, and might go dead at some point. Galeforce is said to the former home of AtlasF1 as well as a now defunct site. I'm leaving them out so others can judge the reliablity of the sites for themselves, I'm not sure either way. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Ealdgyth puts a lot of effort into checking these websources, and "they're highly regarded" or "yes, they're reliable" or "WikiProject X recommends them" or "another FA uses them" aren't helpful answers. The reliability of a source needs to be evaluated specifically in relation to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB. Editors using these questionable sources need to identify a page about the source that establishes its editorial oversight or fact checking or ownership, or a secondary published source that establishes its expertise. "ChicaneF1.com is a large database of accurate Formula One information that is regarded fairly well," doesn't answer the query. Who gathers the data? Who fact checks? Who is the owner? What secondary publications speak highly to its reliability? Who regards them highly and where is that published? etcetera ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not a problem. I will try to answer on a few questioned.
ChicaneF1 is one of the most comprehensive Formula One statistics websites on the internet. Its intent is to "be the most comprehensive Formula 1 statistics website." It is published by Jonathan Davies, and has a news arrangement with ManipeF1. ChicaneF1's use for this article is purely for its statistics. An example page for use here would be http://www.chicanef1.com/racetit.pl?year=1995&gp=Japanese%20GP. Note detailed pages on qualifications and other parts of the race. It offers more detailed statistics compared to [Formula1.com]. Per WP:V, the references are used to ChicaneF1 as a published source of the information cited. In this case of each use of this reference--
Official race name = XXI Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix^[1] (official name of race, multiple sources cite this).
It was the 16th and penultimate race of the 1995 Formula One season.^[1] (a basic 1995 race calendar page could be used if necessary).
Schumacher clinched his tenth pole position of his career, in his Benetton B195 with a time of 1:38.023.^[1]. -- the use of this source is to establish that this was Schumacher's tenth pole position, a fact that would otherwise need a list of Schumacher poles to delineate which one it was.
The race was held mainly under damp conditions with a race start time of 14:00 JST (GMT +9).^[1] -- telecast information from the BBC or ESPN back this up. Would a reliable television source be preferable?

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "1995 Japanese GP - XXI Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix". ChicaneF1.com. Retrieved 2008-03-02.

Please let me know on this site.

-- Guroadrunner (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of gpracing192.net, It is used to explain succinctly that the title chase was wrapped up mathematically by Schumacher:

There was only a maximum of twenty points on offer for the remaining two races, meaning it was impossible for Hill to catch Schumacher.^[1]

This is factual, as Hill had run out of races to beat Schumacher on points. I am not sure of another source that states this directly, and to tabulate and explain the F1 points system ourselves risks WP:OR. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I think the Michael Schumacher quotation box should refer to what the "new record" is, i.e. ten wins in a season.-- Diniz (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Resolved.-- Diniz (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Done. Might need a reword though. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Benetton pic you have is a B194 painted in the 1995 colours, rather than a B195. The shape of the air intake looks wrong - that's one area in which there were quite a lot of changes between 1994 and 1995. Initially the 1995 cars had to have a vent at the back of the airbox to prevent any ram air pressure being built up. Such jiggery-pokery is not unusual - show cars are often painted in the latest sponsor's colours, not in the historically accurate ones. 4u1e (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to tell - I've done some comparisons using the drawings and photos from the 1994 and 1995 AUTOCOURSEs, and I can't choose between the B194 and B195. If a photo of Schumacher in a B195 is essential, then the Flickr user who changed the license of two of his photos for the Forti article has two such images from the 1995 British GP. I could request another license change if need be.-- Diniz (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be a B194. I'm starting to think this is the case. The Williams next to it is definitely a FW16 painted in the FW17 livery. Readro (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by the rounded shape of the air intake - I think the 195 had an almost triangular air intake, which was initially combined with a 'chimney' shape at the back of the airbox. The chimney disappeared later in the season (iirc because the FIA realised that the rule requiring a vent at the back of the airbox wasn't having the required effect). The airbox almost certainly didn't change, because its structure is part of the chassis and not that easy to alter. 4u1e (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at my other photos. When the car is in the background, I'm fairly certain I can make out "B194" on the stand. Case closed. Nice detective work! Readro (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BUT, that means the pic needs to go, or at least the caption will need re-writing. We can't leave it labelled as a B195 if it's the previous year's car. 4u1e (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- General prose comment: There may be jargon here but I can't recognize it because I'm a racing fan. Grab your Auntie Hilda or somebody who doesn't know anything about racing and have them read the paragraphs where you describe all the race action. Note her reaction. Some possibilities: "take the start", "jump the start", "stop and go penalty", etc.
  - I'll try and adjust some of these to make it less jargony. D.M.N. (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the first mention of "stop and go penalty", I've linked it to Formula One regulations#Penalties, which hopefully should explain it better. D.M.N. (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 1b concern: You have almost nothing here about media coverage of the event. Was it televised? How many people watched it? How many people attended? What general media stories were written about the race and in what magazines, etc?
  - Having looked at many sources, the media coverage from race to race tends to be the same. By this time the championship was decided so coverage may of been a little less. It would of been televised in at least 200 countries, but to find out how many exactly watched it would be very difficult. I might be able to find an attendance figure though. D.M.N. (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The broadcasters would have been the same for all '95 world championship F1 races, and there would probably be >50 of them so they can't all be listed. What could be mentioned somewhere is that Fuji Television were the host broadcaster of the race, and produced the world feed that was shown by all the broadcasters. I've been trying to think where a cite could be found for that - I believe (but need to check) the credits at the end of the BBC broadcast mention it. AlexJ (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I'm not sure I can stomach the use of the word "penultimate" thrice in two paragraphs.~~
  - Changed the second "penultimate" to "sixteenth". D.M.N. (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~In the lead, you say "race" and then in the first paragraph of the Background heading you say "round". Please be consistent; it is not clear that a race is a round is a race.~~
  - They both mean the same thing. Anyway, I've standardised it to "race" for consistency. D.M.N. (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Schumacher was on 92 points, with Damon Hill on 59 points, meaning it was impossible for Hill to catch Schumacher with only two rounds left and a maximum of 20 points on offer." Too clunky, please reword.
  - Reworded and split into two sentences. D.M.N. (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"Having been in the Sauber..." The way this is worded implies there was only one Sauber in each of these races. If that's not strictly true, please reword.~~
  - Changed to "Having been in one of the two Sauber cars...." - hopefully that clarifies it better. D.M.N. (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Both practice sessions lasted an hour and 45 minutes..." This sentence suggests that we have already read that there are two practice sessions, but this is the first we've read of it. Suggest beginning this para with a sentence explaining the practice sessions.
  - Done. Hopefully I've worded it well, please make a note underneath if you feel it could be worded better. D.M.N. (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Williams and Ferraris..." You've made "Ferrari" plural but not "Williams". As I'm not sure you want to deal with saying something like "Williamses", suggest rewriting so you can make both of them singular.
  - Reworded to "The Williams and Ferrari cars..." - D.M.N. (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"Barrichello, as a result retired from the race." Reword please. Maybe "Barrichello retired from the race as a result."~~
  - Yep, your version sounds better and more fluent. Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"It was later found out that the problem was a driveshaft failure..." Rewrite to active voice to specific a subject and please find a better term than "found out".~~
  - Reworded. Changed "found out" to "discovered" and I've also provided a link to driveshaft. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Schumacher put the pressure on after his second stop, setting the fastest lap on lap 33, before Hill made his pitstop on lap 35, leaving Schumacher back in front." The opening phrase is too sportscaster-ish. He left Schumacher "back" in "front"? Confusing.
  - Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, as Coulthard braked for 130R..." Maybe say "... braked for the 130R portion of the track ..." or something like that. You don't want to make the reader look at the diagram to know what you're talking about at this point.
  - Good point. Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~You alternately write "Spoon Curve" and "Spoon curve". Please make consistent.~~
  - Done. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak object~~ - the lead really is too small at this stage. I am unable to remember anything about this race from the top of my head, but if it was a wet race with a few incidents, then I would expect there to be quite a lot to talk about in this race, expecially with the wet-dry transition and the usual chaos. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the lead as requested. On your second point, I've looked at many sources, including the BBC version of the race on YouTube, and I cannot find anything else highly notable to add. Plus there weren't many incidents as the race track actually started off fairly damp, it wasn't hugely wet, especially compared with the Japan 1994 race. D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Williams' retiring is now mentioned twice in the lead. AlexJ (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. I really don't know how to expand the lead beyond that, sorry. D.M.N. (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've added the fact that Schumacher's victory equalled Mansell's record for nine race wins in a season to the lead, as I think that the fact is of enough significance to be included there.-- Diniz (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I might have another look at other things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

^ "Schumacher - simply the best - again". Grand Prix Racing. Retrieved 2008-03-02.