Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Lead

• "After the end of the race," I don't think you need to say "the end"; "After the race," does the exact same job.

• Fixed

• The lead doesn't make sense chronologically. You mention who won, the stewards' decision, then go back to qualifying and then how the race went.

• I think that is fixed now

Report

• How about a background section?

• In F1 we generally don't do a background section while the season is still in progress, the season page and previous race page should provide the necessary details, otherwise we repeat ourselves too much.

• "Toyota's Jarno Trulli was out most of the session after his car suffered electrical problem." "was out" is informal, I would suggest an alternative.

• Fixed

• "The second session saw reduced practice time due to rain and bad track conditions." Ditto with "saw", find a more appropriate verb.

• Fixed

• Is "Turn 9" the actual name for the corner?

• Fixed

• "Räikkönen spun on Turn 9 and hit the back of his car on the barriers," Again a little informal, Raikkonen didn't strictly hit his car, the car hit the barriers.

• Fixed

• "Fisichella's crash resulted in the session being red flagged for 10 minutes while the Turn 9 was attended to." Try not finish a sentence with a preposition.

• Fixed

• "The track still remained difficult to drive," It's not the track the drivers drive, it's the cars.

• Fixed

• "nearly replicating Räikkönen accident on Turn 9." Raikkonen's surely?

• Fixed

• "with Alonso topping the sheets at the end of session." topping the sheets is very informal

• Fixed

• "ahead of the McLarens on second and fourth positions," in second ...?

• Fixed

• "The conditions were damp at the start, and became worse as the rain continued throughout early part of the session." missing article.

• Fixed

Apterygial (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General

• No need to link dates any more. There is a script you can run somewhere, or possibly ask User:Tony1.

• Fixed

• Make sure you put a non-breaking space between numerals and units, e.g. 44 laps per WP:MOSNUM. I've done those in the lead.

• I think that's fixed

• Numerals lower than ten should be spelt in full per WP:MOSNUM.

• I think we are fine there. I've kept the FIA regulations numbers as is because that is how they present it in their reports, so it would seem to be the correct manner.

Apterygial (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the review at this point. After reading just the first section, it's clear that the entire article needs a good copy-edit. I won't fail it, but I am close to doing so, but will leave it "on hold". Please read through the article carefully, but there are a lot of literals in just the first section I've reviewed. Peanut4 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and cleaned up all the little things. I personally think it's pretty solid. If I have missed anything feel free to point it out, but as I say, I think the article is fine. Apterygial (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

Lead

• FIA could be done with being spelled out in full, first time. Although it is linked so that helps.

• Fixed

• I don't necessarily have anything to say anything else here, but I just wanted to say you've done a tremendous job on it. It's absolutely spot on now.

Background

• I don't understand why the future two reasons impact on the background section. Also I was basing this above thought on current featured articles of F1 races.

Practice

• "The second session meant drivers had reduced practice time due to rain and bad track conditions." I would turn this sentence round. Put the emphasis on the reason why, e.g. "Rain and bad track conditions meant drivers had less practice time during the second session." or something similar.
• "who slid off of Rivage and had to abandon his session." I know what Rivage means, but I suggest explicitly saying it's a corner for those who don't know, i.e. ... of the Rivage corner/bend ... Ditto with Malmedy and any others.

Qualifying

• "Sébastien Bourdais of Toro Rosso was fastest in the first qualifying session with a late flying lap," Commentators' jargon. Cars don't fly.
• "Williams' Kazuki Nakajima, was eliminated in this session, along with both Honda and Force India cars, Force India using their seamless-shift gearboxes for the second time in this race." Run on sentence. A number of options for you, either "...and Force India cars, the latter of whom were using ...", "...and Force India cars; Force India were using ..." or simply start a new sentence after "Force India cars."
• "The second qualifying session was dominated by McLarens" Either McLaren, the team, or "the McLarens"
• "Rosberg, who faced problems with car's grip," What problems? Needs expanding and full explanation.
  • Still hasn't been addressed. I don't understand what the problems are. It need explaining. Peanut4 (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have been able to establish, Williams didn't either. Their confusion is adressed and referenced in the next sentence.

• "The Toyotas, on the other hand, battled with tyre temperatures," What does this mean? It's verging on jargon.
  • "The Toyotas battled with warming the tyres to operative temperatures," What does battled refer to? Were the cars battling or the drivers? It's non-sensical to the casual reader. Peanut4 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

• "The Toyotas, on the other hand, battled with tyre temperatures, as Trulli and Glock were eliminated in positions eleven and thirteen respectively." Numbers greater than ten should be numerals rather than spelt out per WP:MOSNUM.
• "Piquet Jr. and David Coulthard were the other two drivers who did not qualify for third session." Missing preposition.
• "Lewis Hamilton secured the pole position," Opposite of above, you don't need "the" in this sentence.
• "Toro Rosso continued their strong weekend, taking the last two positions of top ten." Missing preposition again.
• "Massa said the difference between pole-position and second place was down to the car." Why is pole-position hyphenated when it isn't above?

Race

• Don't left-align images directly below level three headings per WP:MOSIMAGE.
• "Trulli was hit from behind at the first corner by Bourdais, who also had a good start, with the Toyota driver suffering diffuser and gearbox damage from the incident, spinning later in the lap." Confusing as to who did what here. Also can it really be a good start if he drove into the back of another car? Good is also POV if not backed up by quotes.
  • "Trulli was hit from behind at the first corner by Bourdais, who also had a quick start, with the Toyota driver suffering diffuser and gearbox damage from the incident, spinning later in the lap." It's still long and confusing. Which drive suffered car problems? Two noun+ings in the sentence. I would suggest making this clearer. Peanut4 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Two sentences.

• "Kovalainen and Heidfeld also collided at the start, Alonso benefiting the most as both dropped several places." Run on sentence.
  • "Alonso benefited the most as both dropped several places." Who says Alonso benefited the most? It needs a reference. Peanut4 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Avoided need to add reference.

• "Hamilton lead from Räikkönen who managed to pass his Ferrari team-mate Felipe Massa on the Kemmel straight." Wrong tense of verb and needs a reference.
• "On the second lap Hamilton spun at La Source and lost his lead to Räikkönen on the next straight." "On the second lap" is an introductory phrase and needs to be split off with a comma.
• "Glock lost several places over the first few laps due to problems getting heat in his tyres." What does getting heat mean? Get is a very poor verb with a lot of meanings. I would suggest finding an alternative.
• "On lap ten" Introductory phrase and needs a comma.
• "causing him to spin." Who does him refer to?
• "he was given a drive-through penalty, which he took on lap 14, dropping him to fifteenth place." Could do with a reference. Fifteenth shouldn't be spelt out.
  • Is a reference available? Peanut4 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found one.

• "Räikkönen had put a three second lead" Three second should be hyphenated. I'm not sure "put a lead" is correct wordage either. "opened a three-second lead"?
• "Räikkönen maintained his lead over Hamilton after the round on pit stops, followed by Massa, Alonso and Bourdais." Needs referencing. "On pit stops" is incorrect.
• "On lap 17" is another introductory phrase.
• "Following the second round of pit stops, Räikkönen was five seconds ahead of Hamilton, but Hamilton began to close in on Räikkönen during the last stint as a result of the harder compound tyres suiting his McLaren Mercedes." Where did the harder compound tyres come from? They all started on the same type it says above and been nothing to suggest anything has changed.
• "Rain appeared on lap 41," Rain appeared is extremely vague. It needs further clarification.
• "Rain appeared on lap 41, Hamilton then closed the gap on Räikkönen to 0.988 seconds, still six seconds ahead of Massa." Run on sentence at the moment, but given the above comment, this needs to change anyway.
• "Hamilton attempted to pass Räikkönen at the Bus Stop chicane," Bus Stop chicance is not capped above. Why is it now?
• "Rain appeared on lap 41, Hamilton then closed the gap on Räikkönen to 0.988 seconds, still six seconds ahead of Massa. Hamilton attempted to pass Räikkönen at the Bus Stop chicane, but he cut across the corner. Consequently, Hamilton led out of the chicane but allowed Räikkönen to re-pass him halfway down the straight. Hamilton then passed him again at the La Source hairpin under braking. Räikkönen tried to double-back on Hamilton to regain the position but the line was defended, resulting in Räikkönen touching his front wing on Hamilton's rear tyre. The rain started coming down more heavily and Nico Rosberg spun in front of the two frontrunners, causing Hamilton to run onto the grass. At the next corner, Räikkönen spun and gave the lead back to Hamilton. He then spun again coming out of Blanchimont and hit the barrier, causing him to retire." Needs referencing.
• "On the other hand," cliche. Try avoid.

Post-race

• "Timo Glock was handed a 25-second penalty for overtaking Mark Webber under yellow flags during the final lap of the race. The penalty pushed Glock from eighth to ninth place." Looks very lost all alone at the moment.
• "Two hours after the conclusion of the race," The conclusion is superflouous. "Two hours after the race" does the same job.
• "Two hours after the conclusion of the race, the FIA issued a statement announcing that Hamilton was guilty of contravening Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code which both state that cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage is subject to a drive-through penalty." Needs a comma after International Sporting Code.

Appeal

• "The biggest issue for McLaren was that drive-through penalties cannot subject to appeal." Doesn't make sense, there's a missing word at the very least from this sentence.
• "They presented the previous case of Vitantonio Liuzzi at the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix, specifically the FIA's claim that the presiding chief steward at the race, Tony Scott Andrews, had admitted fault in awarding the penalty to Liuzzi, a claim Andrews denied." "A claim Andrews denied" has its own main verb. I would suggest either a semi-colon after Liuzzi, or a new sentence slightly reworded.
  • Doesn't appear to be addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. New sentence formed.

• "The original penalty received mixed reactions in the world press. Byron Young in Britain's Daily Mirror said that it was the stewards' decision "that mars sport and turns fans away, that ruins the efforts of even the best competitors, taints the day and leaves fans wondering what exactly they are "fans" of".[40]

The Finnish daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat noted that though the Grand Prix had "crushed" Räikkönen's championship dreams, Hamilton had adhered "with the rules of racing" in giving the position back. The newspaper put Räikkönen's disappointment down to his crash, rather than the chicane incident.[41]

However, in Italy La Gazzetta dello Sport declared that the decision was justified, stating that Hamilton "should have waited at least another turn rather than attacking so soon"." I would combine these into one paragraph, since it is headed by "mixed reactions in the world press."

• "However, in Italy" In Italy is an introductory phrase.
• "The incident led to a clarification by the FIA, saying that drivers must wait one further corner after cutting a chicane before attempting another overtaking manoeuvre." Was there any criticism of this clarification. On a personal POV note, I would suggest this was a bit late in coming. Has a driver or F1 person has said something similar?

Not really. I think everyone was so glad that they had said anything at all about what happens when you inadvertantly cut a corner, that there was just the "oh, well that makes it clearer," like the Webber quote included there. Apterygial (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that makes sense. Looks fine. Peanut4 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An awful lot to do, but I'll put it on hold for the time being. Peanut4 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more points above to be addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside comments

I don't want to nitpick or sound ungrateful for the review, but "flying lap" isn't really jargon, is it? I can't think of anything else to call it. Likewise "getting heat into the tyres". Apart from the ugly verb, it's pretty self-explanatory, I'd have thought - but then I have the benefit of prior knowledge. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "flying lap" is very much jargon. Like I say, cars don't fly. Anyone who doesn't know much about F1 won't know what it means. Just stick to exactly what happened. Peanut4 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't any other term for it... Why aren't we explaining drive-throughs, pit-stops.. ? Aah, now I remember why I don't get involved with this kind of thing :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-through penalties, pit-stops aren't jargon, they are technical terms with wikilinks. Flying lap, is just the same as quick lap. Please stick to the facts. I really wish this article had been through a peer review before this premature GAN, given this sort of discussion, but alas it's too late. Peanut4 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All laps are quick. "Quick lap" doesn't cut it. In qualifying there are in-laps, out-laps and flying laps - there are no other types of lap. What has it got to do with facts? Anyway, this is where articles get dumbed down, in my opinion. If "flying lap" needs a wikilink to an explanation of the qualifying system, that would be ideal. Otherwise we're looking at a couple of lines explaining what a flying lap is. I don't mean to sound unpleasant, honestly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but flying lap is untrue. Do you not accept that cars "do not fly"? How do you define one flying lap from another? Was this lap, the quickest ever at Spa? Was it two seconds faster than anyone else in qualifying? Sorry, but flying lap adds nothing to a passing reader, it defines nothing of note, just jargon they won't understand. Peanut4 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ah, on hindsight, a prior peer review would have been definitely better. Back to the issues. I've worked on number of concerns you mentioned above and hope they are resolved now. Regarding background section, it is more objective when it has some sort of bearing on the race. Still, I'm working on whether there is something worthwhile to be written. With a week to go, I think I might be able to produce something. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an explanation of a flying lap at Formula One racing#Qualifying sessions, and we can wikilink to that. I agree that it probably needs explanation to the casual reader, but not at the expense of the flow of the article, since it's an extremely common phrase within the sport at all levels. During a qualifying session, a driver will generally do an out-lap (first lap out of the pits), a flying lap, which is their attempt at posting the best time they can, then an in-lap (back in to the pits). Three laps in total, which constitute each attempt at a serious lap time. Of course I accept that cars don't fly, but it's a common enough phrase within the sport to be used here, with a wikilink explanation if required, like the other terms mentioned. Sometimes the term "hot lap" is used, but it's no clearer to the layman since it has nothing to do with temperature. We can't use "timed lap" because they're all timed - there's no catch-all term that isn't at least slightly jargonised, I suspect. Incidentally, "drive-through" is not wikilinked, and probably should be. I completely agree that the GAN was really premature though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I start to understand the term "flying lap". I initially read it as simply some attempt to say it was very fast. Though given it's meaning, I don't think it is needed anyway.

On another point, given two people have now admitted the GAN was premature, it makes me ask the question, "What do you want to do now?" I see three key options:

• Stay on this course to try and get this towards GAN.
• Fail the GAN and iron out any problems.
• Put in hold indefinitely, and get a short-term peer review done before the GAN is re-started.

I also notice in some talk pages, a couple of editors want to push straight onto FAC. Sorry, but this article is currently way short of that level. I don't know if that will help with any decision what to do at this stage. Peanut4 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stick with option one, considering that the process is underway and has prompted improvement with the article. Next, presuming you are referring to comments on my talk page, the reason I felt this would go to FAC, not right away though, is because the race would have significant impression of sport's governance and a broader prospective can be developed and added at some stage in the future. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll stick with option one then. As for the significance of this race, while F1 articles may get lots of hits and lots of edits, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of the article. Just take a glance at the list of featured articles and read between the lines for key articles which are missing.

If we are to stick with option one, I would highly, highly recommend an independent copy-edit, and not one from within the F1 project. Peanut4 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, who'd have though when you wake up in Australia you would find this. I'm sorry I pressured you guys into the GAN, maybe I was taking WP:BB too far. Looks like we have a bit of work to do in the next week, anyway. Apterygial (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with being bold, but just as a bit of advice for future, I would recommend for GA and FA nominations to gain consensus from all leading editors before going ahead with a nomination. Peanut4 (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and adressed each one of Peanut4's concerns individually. I've also gone to the Copy-Editing Guild and requested assistance. If I don't get any response from them by, say, Wednesday, I'll ask individually. Apterygial (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I confirm, are we ok for GA criteria 2-6, a little scratchy on 1a and almost there on 1b? That's the way I'm currently reading the review. Apterygial (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues listed here have been dealt with. Two independent editors have gone through and copyedited the article. As far as I can see we are there. Peanut4, what do you think? Apterygial (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys. :) Did you still need a GoCE copy-edit? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 17:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, please go through the text and see if you can make any improvements. Thanks. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a reply from the Guild of Copyeditors regarding a copy-edit? It seems to have stablisied again now, but I'll certainly wait beyond the weekend, before taking another full look. Peanut4 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such. I contacted Moralis and Tanankyo on their user pages and they each went through the article and copyedited it. I think the ed17 just wanted to make sure we still wanted the article on the guild's list, rather than feeling any need to CE the article himself. I can't see how it is going to change much from now, I would agree that its now stable. Apterygial (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself, already said that the background section isn't done until the end of the season. This weekend sees the final race of the season, so I see no reason why not to wait a couple more days. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, you're right. And come the final race of the season, I'll actually be operational at roughly the same time you will be, which could make it easier. Thanks. Oh, incidentally, the last time you looked through it, was our problem just with criteria one, or with the others as well? Apterygial (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just criteria one. Peanut4 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Apterygial (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix did not affect the Championship. Nothing to add here. Apterygial (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article is now in a much better state than before the nomination and meets the GA criteria. However, since you want to push towards FAC, I will recommend all editors decide what needs to be done, any improvements that can be made. I would also recommend a peer review, and possibly a copy edit by an experienced editor with good writing skills. I would be very surprised if it would pass at FAC at this stage. The prose meets GA the criteria, but I do not believe it is "engaging and of professional standard" and hence would not pass 1a of WP:WIAFA. Peanut4 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]