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 promoted by Laser brain 20:06, 15 February 2011 [1].

---

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): --Midgrid(talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Since its last nomination, the article has undergone a further peer review. The previous two nominations have suffered from a general lack of comments and opinions, so all contributions to this nomination are welcomed.--Midgrid(talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I conducted the last Peer review. Tightened it up a bit more, nothing wrong with the article a worthy FA KnowIG (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I supported the last FAC, and have conducted a peer review on the article in the past. This is a comprehensive, well-written and referenced article. Previous FAC nominations have failed, as Midgrid says, from a lack of comments, rather than any outstanding problems with the article, and I think it deserves to be passed. Apterygial 22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I checked sources at the last FAC; nothing changed, all looks good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency comment: Alonso is mentioned in the lede with surname only, without prior wikilinked full name. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Midgrid(talk) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Reviewed this at the last FAC and all of my comments were addressed. I took a look at the changes made since then, and didn't see anything to comment about. Seems to meet the criteria to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Nice work keeping up with this. Having had an article turned down at FAC before, I know how tough it is to stay motivated and come back for another go. Doing it for the third time with the same article earns you kudos in my book.
• I've given the article a quick copy edit, but because I'm not as familiar with the subject as you are, and especially because I'm not as familiar with the conventions of British English, I'd appreciate it if you'd look over my changes to see if there's anything I've screwed up too badly. From that copy edit and looking over the article, I have a few additional questions.

Thanks for the copyedit; it all looks fine to me.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article seems to lean on that first citation pretty heavily. Is there another source you could use for at least some of those? Since it's a sporting event, are there accounts of the race that could replace or at least buttress that first citation?

This citation is the two-page statistical section at the end of the race report in the Autocourse annual; it contains the race, qualifying and practice times, a lap chart, and other information, so I have naturally used it as a reference for whenever I have mentioned specific times or laps when something happened. I have another annual which contains the same information - should I double all the references?--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that under an additional sources/references header might be appropriate. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the new reference as an additional citation for the information in the infobox, the qualifying and race result tables, and the "standings after the race" tables. Is that alright?--Midgrid(talk) 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the length of the sections under the third-level headers in the report section, have you considered promoting those to second-level headers and simply deleting "Report"?

I would prefer to keep it as it is already, in order to keep it consistent with other F1 race articles that have already reached FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When talking about how teams were limited in testing from the previous year, did that effect their preparation for the HGP? If not, that seems like information better suited for the parent article about the racing season.

Not really. I was asked to include this specific information in the most recent peer review.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "On the day before the first free practice sessions took place" is this July 21, or does "free practice" mean something different than the "testing" referenced previously in that section?

"Free practice" refers to the three timed sessions that occur during the event, before qualifying and the race, so the date is July 31. I've clarified this in the article.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "with a view to giving the system its race debut later in the year"; if they actually did use it, you could phrase this: "ahead of the system's race debut later in the year". As it is, that text says to me that they only anticipated doing so, not that they actually did.

Changed.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Under practice and qualifying, I suggest spelling out the first time (1 minute and 20.981 seconds) in order to establish the units you're using in the abbreviated times that follow.

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Hamilton qualifying paragraph, there's a note in the wikicode that might need to be resolved.

Removed, as it was just for my own reference.--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ferrari used an additional set of Soft tyres to McLaren"; is this a quirk of British English? I don't understand it.

Changed to "Ferrari used one more set of Soft tyres than McLaren".--Midgrid(talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What time did the race start?

  (I'm a reviewer but reply anyway) At the time, almost all F1 races started at 14:00 local time, and since the Hungaroring races also start at this default time, this is probably something for the mother article of the 2008 F1 season. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  2008 Formula One season#2008 Race Calendar indeed lists start times, but I see that that was the first year in which there was a night race, and then already only 8 out of 18 races started at 14:00 local time. So I change my opinion and agree that start time could be indicated in the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the race televised, and if so, by whom and who were the commentators for the primary broadcast?

  All F1 races are internationally televised in several languages, there is no primary commentator nor exclusive broadcasting rights for subscriber channels: it's like the World Cup or Olympics. The precise arrangement is probably something for the mother F1 article. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed: check Formula One#Television. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotcha. Still, even a sentence saying that it was broadcast per the standard F1 television formula would be helpful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article isn't consistent in its presentation of ordinal numbers greater than 10th. In parts, it spells them out (tenth, sixteenth, etc.) while in others, it uses numerals. MOSNUM says to use numerals, but I'd be happy with either, as long as it's consistent. The biggest switch seems to happen right before the Race subsection, but they're scattered throughout.

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of January 2011" -- is this still true?

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it from me. The article's pretty clean, and most of the stuff I found was fairly nit-picky. Drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, and good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content comment or more like a bundle of questions: is there a policy against naming dignitaries who hand over the trophies at sports events (I checked a couple of other F1 articles and found no mention), or is the lack of mention down to lack of sources, or lack of focus? There certainly don't seem to be many sources -- in Hungarian, all I could find was that the then defence minister handed the award to race winner Kovalainen; I found a full list of the four trophy presenters only in English here. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of; I just think that it's not reported because it doesn't really matter. The only exception I can think of was the 2006(?) Turkish Grand Prix, when one of the trophies was presented by the President of Northern Cyprus, and the organisers were given a hefty fine for breaching the FIA's policy of political neutrality (Northern Cyprus is only officially recognised by Turkey).--Midgrid(talk) 19:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that the dignitaries are named in the FOM graphics during the TV broadcast.--Midgrid(talk) 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your responses to JKBrooks85 above!--Midgrid(talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the 14:00 issue and another issue JKBrooks85 noted myself, the MOSNUM thing remains. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Commprehensive, well written coverage of the race, fully in compliance with MoS and WP:F1 guidance. A couple of minor points to think about: the second, third and fourth paras of background, while valid here, would make more sense for me in the overarching season article as they have little direct impact on the race; You might need to explain that drivers and teams have to make a tactical decision on how much fuel to qualify with in the final session. 4u1e (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to offer my support, since I'll take it in good faith that the MOSNUM problem will be fixed -- it's the only substantive thing left, IMHO. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and easy to understand even for someone with a limited grasp of F1 racing. You've done a good job, and the fact that this article has been through so many rounds of review shows that it should be promoted. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I could only repeat the above; support. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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