This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wrote the bulk of this article some two and half years ago, and gave it a second push just over a year ago. I've had another read through it recently, and I'm a bit stuck on how to proceed, although I think it would make a nice featured article.
To me, I feel there's still a little something lacking in terms of content. I think the post-race section is probably the weakest part, so any suggestions on relevant information to go here would be especially appreciated. Even if you could just say "I'd like to know more about x" then I can do some research and flesh out that part a little.
Of course, all and any comments on prose quality, clarity/wording, things that you feel are missing, lack of (quality) citations or anything else that would improve the article (no matter how small) would be great.
Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Midgrid
Well, first of all, it's nice to see an F1 race report not from the 1995 or 2008 seasons going through a peer review! ;)
The article looks good so far, but I think it has quite a long way to go to reach FA, or even GA standard.
- The information in the infobox should be cited using the "Details ref" parameter (which is a relatively recent addition to the template.
- The co-ordinates of the Jarama circuit should be added, using the relevant template.
- Team names should be linked throughout the infobox and results tables.
- The full names of FISA and FOCA should probably be spelt out when they are first introduced.
- There are only two inline citation for the entire race section, which isn't enough.
- Regarding the short post-race section, perhaps it could be filled out with quotations from Alan Jones and other leading drivers on their race? I have the Autocourse and Motor Sport reports, which should contain suitable material if needed.
- The external link to the Autosport article just redirects to the website's main page.
- A good thing for you to do would be to look at a race report article which has recently been promoted to FA status, and check it against this one in terms of formatting, as they all follow certain conventions with have been tried and tested through multiple FACs.
I hope these suggestions are useful for you!--Midgrid(talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, I'll try and implement your suggestions as soon as I can. On the subject of quotes (which now you mention it is blindingly obvious!), if you were able to find something appropriate in either of the sources you quote, that would be great. Otherwise I'll see what I can find, although I've yet to come across anything in the sources I'm using. Also regarding the Autosport article - is that the one which I've provided the archive link for? If so, the cite template autolinks the original URL, which is a required field for the thing to display, so I'm not sure what to do about that. AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same link but in the external links section instead of the references section, so you could just add the archived URL there as well.--Midgrid(talk) 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see it! I think the external links is a relic from before I started adding the inline citations, so I've removed the whole section as none of the articles were entirely about the event. AlexJ (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Trekphiler
This page may not be the place to address it, but one thing puzzles me: how does FISA impose a fine for drivers not doing something that isn't required in the rules? How does FIA fine drivers for legal racing? Or is there somewhere that explains? If so, I'd suggest linking it in. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the right place, and I'll try and explain in the article a little more about why the fines happened & why the race was declared illegal. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from QueenCake
Midgrid summed it up pretty well there, more inline citations are required, especially for the race section as it is the focus of the article. Some fleshing out of each section, where possible of course, together with more references is the chief concern of this article. One thing I noticed was in the Background section. You have got these lines The Spanish Grand Prix was originally scheduled to be the seventh round of the 1980 World Championship. Disputes between motorsports' governing body, the FISA, and the body representing the chassis builders (constructors) competing in the championship, the FOCA. and apart from being grammatically incorrect, there is no explanation of the FISA-FOCA dispute. A bit more background information of the events leading up to the race, as they did directly affect it, would certainly help the reader understand why there was an argument to begin with.
Some images would also be good to have. I know it may be rather hard to find any free to use pictures of the race itself, but some images of the drivers or cars involved would do.
Also, I took the time to link teams through the article.
Hope I helped! QueenCake (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to read through and making the links. I've read through the article many times and completely missed that fragment of a sentence! I'll get that fixed and try and expand on the build-up a bit more. Regarding images, I'll have a look through the commons and see what I can come up with. AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Apterygial
Midgrid essentially summarised the key points here as far as I can see it. A few things:
- The article could use a bit more background regarding the racing itself during the 1980 season. E.g., was Ferrari doing well that season, to the point that their absence significantly devalued the race? Was Jones' victory consistent with his form in the other races?
- Flags could potentially become an issue. MOS:FLAG suggests that you "[a]ccompany flags with country names", which I conformed to in 1906 French Grand Prix with the addition of the ((cc3)) template next to flags and names. This wasn't an issue at 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, but it did become one at 2008 Monaco Grand Prix (it would be easier to solve if WPF1 got over its intransigence on following the MOS).
- "Osella believed that this would mean no penalties were issued against his constructor's licence." Awkward tense with the use of "were".
- Teams should be linked at first mention.
- "Piquet's led for seven laps until on lap 42 his Brabham's gearbox failed, and he was unable to continue." Stray possessive.
- I suppose Jones would have been pretty pissed off when the results were discounted?
Prose is awkward in places, although I appreciate this remains a work in progress. I can review again or copyedit when you feel you're closer to FAC. Apterygial talk 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]