Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get feedback on what needs to be done with the article in order to pass GA, with an aim of then moving on towards FAC. The template we are following for the article are the two FAs 1995 Japanese Grand Prix and 1995 Pacific Grand Prix. It is only a short time since the event, but all the major issues from the race are there. Thanks in advance for the criticism. Thanks, Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

I think the insane idea is coming along nicely. Some minor points:

• "he Autódromo José Carlos Pace (otherwise known as Interlagos) of São Paulo, Brazil." in Sao Paolo? near Sao Paolo? Probably not of Sao Paolo, though.
  • I'm changing that to "in" - of just sounds a bit... wierd. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just copied the structure from the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix lead. That's what the copyeditors ended up with. It IS pretty weird. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "where contact with main rival Felipe Massa saw the McLaren driver relegated to the back of the field." Wasn't Hamilton's penalty for the contact with Raikkonen at the start?
  • I would agree that seems a tad out of place, the original statement is criticism towards Hamilton, where, if memory serves me right people criticised him because of his overly aggresive start. No one criticised him because of the Massa incident - that was arguably 100% Massa's fault. I suggest changing that so it talks about the first corner incident instead of the Massa clash. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed. But I'm not hugely confident with what I changed it to. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "More rain in the closing laps could not prevent Hamilton from finishing the race in fifth position," perhaps 'did not' instead of 'could not'? It certainly could have!
• "Heading into the final race of the season" Perhaps a little magazine-y?
  • Disagree. I think it's fine for an encyclopedia - no real reason, but I don't think it's magaziney to a huge extend. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a style thing, so we're unlikely to always agree! 4u1e (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You might want to explain what the FIA is at the first appearance. I usually put "motorsport's world governing body". This occasionally prompts complaints from American editors, but as far as I know it is true, in that even NASCAR falls under their remit via the US national governing body, ACCUS.
  • Unless I'm blind, I can't see any mention of FIA in the prose... D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last para of 'Background'. Spelt out in full, which of course doesn't help unless you speak French! 4u1e (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added minor description. I think I need an eye check up....... =D D.M.N. (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The relative slowing in pace" perhaps needs expanding a bit to make the meaning clear. Perhaps "Hamilton's relatively slow pace in the final qualifying session compared to the first two"?
  • Changed. I know Tony1 hates the word 'relatively', so I removed that too. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "changed both their cars' tyres" Ambiguous. How about "changed the tyres on both their cars"?
  • Good point and changed
• Would it be useful to expand on why Kubica stayed on the dry tyres?
  • Will do. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added to post-race. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ENGVAR You've got "tyres" for UK English (normal for F1 articles), but "donuts" instead of "doughnuts" later on.
  • Done - the Wikipedia article is located at Doughnut (driving), therefore so should the "seeable" bit of the link. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See I always have problems with stuff like this, in Australia we use both. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You should check for repeated links - I can see two Red Bull Racings.
  • Changed Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Several journalists commented on Massa's sportsmanlike approach after the race. See here for example. Can we add something on that?
  • I added that. I'll see if I can find some more. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article overall. I'd say you were in an excellent position to go for GA on this one. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thankyou for the help! Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by AlexJ

Overall, it's pretty good, content seems to be all there. Here's some thoughts on how it can be improved.

Lead:

• "Massa started alongside Toyota driver Jarno Trulli." - Started what? That may need a bit of clarification/context to aid non race-fans.

Background:

• "the Brazilian driver would not have enough points to eclipse Hamilton's tally" - I've always thought eclipse to mean greatly outperform or similar. Indeed wiktionary says "to overshadow; to dominate something and make it seem insignificant." Also perhaps the tiebreaker in case of points draw needs to be mentioned here.
  • I changed to "the Brazilian driver would not have enough points to defeat Hamilton's tally." I tried to write the section so that we wouldn't have to mention tiebreakers; I said he had finish at least fifth, if he finished sixth he would have lost because the tiebreaker rule would have come into effect. I didn't want to get too technical. But if you think I should still put it in, I will.
    • If you want to avoid mentioning the tiebreak, you'll have to be very careful about how you word it. Defeating Hamilton's tally implies getting more points than, which wasn't required. You'll need to somehow word it in the form of Massa getting enough points to beat LH in the championship positions as opposed to earning enough points to beat him in the championship points (can't think how to make that clearer, do you understand what I mean?) AlexJ (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added it. I understood what you meant, but the thought of having to write that in the article overwhelmed me and I simply added the tie-break information and cited the sporting regulations.Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practice & qualifying:

• Would it be beneficial to mention about the times being wiped clean at the end of Q1 & Q2 in the explanation paragraph? I'd get a second opinion first.

• "The final part of qualifying determined the positions from first to tenth, and effectively decided pole position." - Effectively seems redundant here, as it directly decides pole position.

• "Raikkönen qualified third, though was happy with beginning the race on the racing line behind his team-mate." - Racing line is jargon, and might need a bit of explanation.
  • I linked it. Is that enough?
    • Yeah, that should be fine. As long as there's somewhere people can easily find if they aren't sure what it means. Link is probably the best option here. AlexJ (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hamilton's slow pace in the final qualifying session compared to the first two suggested he was carrying more fuel than his title challengers." - Why? Perhaps need to explain the low fuel/race fuel Q1/2/3 differences earlier on in the how quali works paragraph.
  • Added explanation.

Race:

• "The race was due to begin at 15:00 local time (UTC-2), but was delayed by ten minutes when heavy rain hit the track." - would it be worth mentioning it was delayed due to how late in the start sequence the rain came (after the tyres must have been fixed to the car).
  • I did say "when heavy rain hit the track." I think that sufficiently represents the lateness of the delay.
    • I'm not so sure. Say the rain hit at 14:40 and was due to clear by 15:10 so they delayed the start by 10 minutes. The above sentance would still be correct. I know said situation wouldn't happen, but the reader won't neccissarily know this to be the case. AlexJ (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. The sentence now reads: "The race was due to begin at 15:00 local time (UTC-2), but was delayed by ten minutes when heavy rain hit the track minutes before the scheduled start." I think that covers all the bases. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And now it reads: "The race was due to begin at 15:00 local time (UTC-2), but was delayed by ten minutes when heavy rain hit the track at 14:56."

• "Vettel was closing in quickly on Hamilton, the McLaren driver needing to finish no lower than fifth to win the Championship.[19]" last time we mentioned Vettel he was in sixth. I think by the sentence he's in fifth. It doesn't say anywhere he jumped Glock, and in any case it can be quite hard to keep up with all the overtakes in prose so a position reminder for SV would be useful at this stage IMO.
  • I think he was sixth - wasn't Hamilton fifth, and then Hamilton ran wide at final bend and Vettel went through to fifth? D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only after Hamilton and Vettel pitted and Glock didn't. This is before the rain. I added Vettel's position.

• "Massa crossed the finish line for the final time" This could come across a little weird to someone unfamiliar with motorracing. Logically a driver only crosses the finish line once at the end of the race. The rest of the time it's usually referred to as the start/finish line. I'd phrase it completely differently.
  • Rewrote as "As Massa crossed the finish line, Hamilton battled Vettel for the crucial point needed to win the Championship."

• "Hamilton finished the race in fifth position, just enough to become Formula One's youngest Championship winner" - take out the just, and add he'd done it by a single point instead. (Let the reader deduce how close it was rather than than tell them)

Post race:

• "After the race, Felipe Massa appeared on the podium and subsequent press conference." - might need to clarify somehow this is standard procedure for race winner. They way it's written now gives it too much emphasis - it sounds almost as if a mistake's been made putting FM on the podium rather than LH.

• "a celebration illegal in Formula One" - illegal sounds a little extreme. not permitted by the regulations might be more suitable? Although actually, I don't think donuts are explicitly prohibited. The relevant rule is "After receiving the end-of-race signal all cars must proceed on the circuit directly to the post race parc fermé without any unnecessary delay" A reword perhaps?

• "Coulthard left Formula One with 246 race starts and 13 wins, after 15 years." - better as "Coulthard left Formula One after 15 years with 246 race starts and 13 wins."?

Other:

• Keep an eye out for relevant freely licenced pictures of the actual race in Flickr etc. Some are almost bound to come up. Not a requirement for GA/FA but they do help the article (providing the number used is kept reasonable).

• How reliable a source is thinkSpain? Would we be better using a quality Spanish-language source ([1] - El Mundo for example.
  • I changed it. My Spanish is terrible, and thinkSPAIN didn't look too unreliable. I dunno, is it that likely to be challenged? Also, is it likely to come up in an FAC "why is it in Spanish"?
    • At FA level I think every source needs to be from a quality output, the reviewers have tightened up on this a lot recently. I imagine you'd have been asked to justify why thinkSpain is reliable. As for using a foreign language source, WP:CITE says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate." Keyword here is equal caliber, thinkSPAIN is definately of lesser caliber than El Mundo (which I believe is considered a newspaper of record in Spain, similar reputation to say The Times in the UK). I don't think you'd have a problem at FAC. AlexJ (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks. I read that policy after I posted the above comment. I guess I'm trying to predict every thing that could possibly go wrong at FAC at the moment. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's of some use. AlexJ (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so promptly. I've adressed your concerns. This was exactly the kind of PR I was looking for. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 01:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help guys, especially D.M.N. I've closed this so I can list the article for GA, but I should have the 2008 Italian Grand Prix page back here soon. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 14:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]