Reference formatting is all over the place, including typos and different citation styles throughout. While it is not a GA requirement, if the ultimate goal is FA, these will have to be sorted out in a consistent fashion as FAC reviewers will hammer on this.
There is a heavy reliance on blogs, which per WP:SPS, are likely not reliable sources. Of specific concern: F1 Fanatic, Adam Cooper's F1 Blog, Joe Saward blogs about F1, ScarbsF1, Cameron Paterson F1 (ref 119, deadlink and unverifiable). Given how much of the article is cited to these blogs, I do not think that the review can continue until I am satisfied these meet our RS standards or the citations are changed to something that is a RS.
Regardless, ref 157, a tweet from one of the above bloggers is most certainly not a RS.
The problems with the referencing are largely my fault. I tend to make quite a few errors when I type quickly. I'm not sure exactly what you mean with regards to inconsistent citation styles, but if you're referring to the Autosport articles and the way some have the author name and others do not, that's probably because Autosport introduced a limit on the number of articles you can read. After 30, you have to start paying to access the site.
On the subject of the blogs, the Formula 1 WikiProject has no issue with their use. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the world of Formula 1, but each of these blogs is run by some very respected journalists:
Keith Collantine of F1 Fanatic is very well-known, and runs what is perhaps the largest Formula 1 blog on the internet. He's pretty much transcended being a blog to being a news source himself - when this year's Ferrari was launched, Collantine had an article on his site hours before most of the major news outlets. Furthermore, comapre the content of his articles with the articles posted by Autosport, and you'll see that he's very reliable.
Adam Cooper is also well-known, with thirty years' experience in Formula 1. He's attended 300 consecutive races, and has contacts all throughout the paddock. That twitter reference you point out as being an RS comes from Cooper.
Craig Scarborough of ScarbsF1 is known for his technical articles. He started out as a grassroots blogger, but these days, he contributes to Autosport as one of their technical writers.
Like the above journalists, Joe Saward is also known, though I'm very hesitant to use him unless I feel I need a secondary source (I've noticed the page uses Autosport as a reference a lot) because he's had a few problems in the past with letting his personal feelings get in the way of his objective reporting. This is mostly limited to one subject, though, and I avoid referencing anything he writes on the subject (hell, I avoid reading him these days).
As for the Cameron Patterson reference, I have honestly no idea who he is. This is the first time I've heard of him, and I was completely unaware that his blog was being used as a reference.
I may have to refer this to the RSN, because as you alluded to, I am not familiar at all with the bloggers. All I see is "wordpress", and that raises a red flag. Do some of these guys have a known history in mainstream media that I can use to back them with? Thanks, Resolute00:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collantine and Scarborough have regularly appeared on The Flying Lap, a YouTube series in the style of a panel show hosted by Peter Windsor, a journalist and former team principal. Scarborough also contribues to Autosport, a leading motorsport publication, for technical commentary. Joe Saward is known in the paddock, working with David Tremayne; they publish a e-magazine together and have each written several books on the sport. And finally, Adam Cooper works for SPEED TV, though not being American, I don't know what his capacity it. Nevertheless, he's attended 300 races, and has quite a few contacts - many of the stories used as references are ones he has broken first.
Finally, you didn't mention him, but you may also spot references from James Allen's blog as well. Although self-sublished like the others, he was lead commentator for the English-anguage broadcasts of the sport for over six years. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw James Allen's site, but the professional nature of it led me to be more concerned about the others. I have, however, requested opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard here. Feel free to add any comments not already made here, and/or to respond to anyone who responds there. As a fair warning though, if it is decided there that these are not RSes per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I will fail this nomination. If they feel they can be used, I will continue the review. Thanks, Resolute23:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for letting this lapse. My on-wiki time has generally been limited lately, and has been focused on some rather momentous events in my personal sporting focus/obsession. I got no response at RSN, but a posting to the GAN talk page here did pretty much coincide with my thinking. I'll accept Scarborough, given I view Autosport as a reliable source, and Cooper, since he seems to be all over SpeedTV. Colltaine and Saward I still wonder about. Do you have any RS sources that identify them as acknowledged experts? Resolute00:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't want to let this hang forever, so I will continue reviewing prose regardless. This may take a bit given the article's size.
Team changes
The paragraph about Force India's partial sale mixes past tense with present tense then back to past tense. This should be made consistent in the past tense.
"Kaltenborn's appointment made her the first female team principal in the sport's sixty-three year history." - Citation needed
Driver changes
"Sébastien Buemi became Red Bull Racing's testing and reserve driver and will contest the 24 Hours of Le Mans with Toyota, driving a TS030 Hybrid." - Not sure how relevant Buemi's competition in the 24 Hours of Le Mans is to this article, but the tense needs to be changed.
Calendar changes
The line for the US Grand Prix is also in improper tense. Future looking statement on an event in the past.
"The regulations in 2012 will govern the design of the exhaust with the teams agreeing to strict constraints on the position of the exhaust tailpipe. This will result ..." - Again, tense issue.
"Technical regulations for 2012 include the reprofiling of the car's nose. The pre-2012 regulations allow the nose to be as high..." - Same. Should be past tense. "...included the reprofiling of the car's nose. The pre-2012 regulations allowed the nose..." I am not going to continue pointing out the temporal errors, but it is clear the entire article should be checked for this.
Other Changes
The BBC/Sky Sports deal resulted in the parties being called to answer questions before a House of Commons committee. How did that resolve?
Race summaries
OMGHUGE! I've no real issue with the section, however. There is some minor use of slang but nothing to really worry about from my POV.
Overall
Very well written, especially given the size. I think the main requirement from a prose perspective is to adjust the statements from future or present tense to past. Overall though, I am going to place this nomination on hold. I don't really like the amount of blog coverage (and would recommend minimizing it in future articles), but am leaning toward accepting it in this case. Cheers! Resolute23:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outside comment
What is holding up this review? It's the oldest GA review on hold, and there hasn't been any action for well over three weeks. Were any of the issues you pointed out ever dealt with? If not, perhaps it's time to close the review... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been thinking of sending a reminder note, but needed a reminder of my own, apparently. ;) I'm heading out of town in a couple days for a week, but if nothing happens after, I may have to close this. Resolute15:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about all that. Something came up in real life, and while I was able to keep up my usual editing practices, a lot of the side-projects like this got neglected. Anyway, I've gone through the article and changed most, if not all, of the tense that needed to be changed. The only real point of concern at the moment is the sources provided, but I still maintain that these are highly reliable, even or self-published sources. Particularly F1 Fanatic; ten minutes on the site should tell you all that you need to know about its reliability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am going to accept the sources, though I do recommend using mainstream sources wherever possible in the future. From a prose perspective, I have few concerns with the article, and so am passing it as a GA. Congrats! Resolute01:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]