2008 German Grand Prix

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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it checked by other users - the aim of this is to get it to at least Good Article status for Apterygial's My Insane Idea project. I would like to be notified of any problems you can notice, and whether it is good enough to be nominated as a Good/Featured Article.

You're welcome to make the edits yourself - its not "my" page, or anything like that. If you don't want to edit, that's fine too! I'm happy to do it for you.

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR by Apterygial (talk · contribs)

Interesting being on the other side of this; I'm used to being the one answering the comments. To be honest, the article needs a fair amount of work. I'll start by knocking off what I see as the bigger problems and the next reviewer can zero in on the smaller ones.

• References are the first thing that jumps out, for several reasons. If you are repeating refs, like you do in the infobox, you can tie it all to the same number by using the format <ref name="name here"> and then the cite info, and then just <ref name="name here"/>, without cite info for the subsequent refs. Some parts of the infobox do have to be cited (laps, distance, official name), I got caught out by this at a recent GAN.
• The refs also need publishing date, publisher, and, when given, author information. If you copy the basic structure from the refs in 2008 Japanese Grand Prix you'll already have the publisher info, and you just need to fill out the other stuff.
• I generally don't reference the lead; if you have to cite something in the lead, chances are you'll mention it in the body and you can cite it there.
• FIA links, like this one are prone to link rot. Make sure FIA URLs you use have "2008" somewhere in them so the link is permanently tied to the page you want.
• Add a paragraph to the end of the lead explaining how the race affected the Championships. This helps add a perspective as to why the article is important. GA and FA reviewers love that.
• Watch out for POV words, including but not limited to "pulverised", "caused somewhat of a stir", "in the region of", "muscled past", "mysteriously" and "strange decision".
• There are a few bits I use in every article to explain things: the first three sentences in the P&Q section in the Japan article and the paragraph which explains how qualifying works are crucial for reviewers. Otherwise they have no idea what's going on.
• I've always thought (well, at least since D.M.N. told me) that qualifying is best told from pole to the back row, not chronologically. How you go in Q1 doesn't matter, so long as you make Q2. It is also quite confusing if you don't know what's going on. I'm aware I'm blowing my own trumpet, but have a look at 2008's GAs and FAs, as well as 1995's FAs, and try to get a sense of how the structure is simpler for the reader.
• "An aggressive wheel-to-wheel pass at the hairpin on lap 57 put Hamilton into second." I don't remember this pass being aggressive; I thought Massa just moved out of the way and ceded the position, for which he was later criticised. You may want to add something about that to Post-race.
• "When the lapped cars were given permission to unlap themselves Button mysteriously decided to stay between second and third. This decision caused him to finish last." While this would appear to be a true description, it seems a little superficial, suggesting that this was the only reason he finished last.
• Post-race needs more prose substance; don't rely so much on a few quotes to get you by, explain what the teams said happened, and contrast opinions. The press conference generally has some good stuff in it.
• Add some pictures. Even if you don't have pictures from the race itself (and you don't) there are a lot of basic pictures of the drivers which can be very illustrative.
• Per WP:F1 convention, "tire" should be "tyre".
• Kill the Notes section.
• Because you now have the team introductory paragraph in the Background section, there is a little bit of overlinking of team names in the rest of the article.
• Classification tables need sourcing.

I'm going to leave it there for now, but I will return in a few days with more if I can. Don't be afraid to ask questions, feel free to break up my comments between the bullet points, rather than below here. Don't feel disheartened - my first attempt at a race report was horrific. Apterygial 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by AlexJ

Before starting, I should point out two things. First is I don't read other PR's before doing mine so some stuff here may already have been flagged up. Second, I review articles against the Featured Article criteria (brilliant prose, comprehensive etc.) Wording wise, I feel the article needs a full copyedit at some stage (maybe when it's nearer reaching the comprehensive criteria). No offence intended, but the prose quality is no better than average, and far from the "engaging, even brilliant" standard required to be a FA. I'll try and pick out some example to help you improve the writing yourself. I'll mainly be focussing on the content itself.

Sourcing wise, F1Fanatic.com and ChicaneF1.com are not considered to be reliable sources. TV.com's usage here is also not right. Alternatives should be sought (see the FA/GA '08 race reports for potential sources).

Lead

• Usually a lead for a F1 race has three paragraphs, including one on the effect on the championship due to the outcome of the race.

• Lewis Hamilton was faster than all the opposition for the first 35 laps of the race, opening up an 18-second lead. - Just say Hamilton led from pole for the first 35 laps. Doesn't need the other filler.

• Timo Glock crashed, and a safety car period ensued. - assumption made here: the reader knows what a safety car period is. Try "and the race was neutralized by the safety car." The mention of Glock's crash may need a bit of timelining as well.

Background

• A bit too much detail here on British GP. Lose the quote I think. Any other interesting off-track stuff happen between Britain and Germany?

Practice/Qualifying

• "Lewis Hamilton topped the first practice session" - topped is too informal.

• Track conditions would be useful to know before you give the session positions.

• "Kubica (in a well recovered car after the first session)" - I don't understand what being said here.

Race

• "while Massa threatened, but failed to pass Kovalainen" - threatened > attempted

• "and Alonso was in fact passed by Räikkönen. moving the World Champion into 6th." - assumption made: the reader knows the 2007 World Champion. An F1 fan might, anyone else probably won't. Worse still, in five/ten/twenty years time, and F1 fan is unlikely to remember either. There's also a stray fullstop here.

• Overuse of ",however," in contexts where they aren't needed.

• "The treatment of Glock after the crash caused Toyota some concern, however." Treatment by who? And another one of those howevers!

• "when the race went green again." - Jargon.

• "Button mysteriously decided to stay between second and third." - no source with details of why this happened?

• Apterygial tends to weave in details of the fastest lap in the closing part of the race section. Have a look at how he does it in his articles.

Post-race

Bit more needed here. Effect on the WDC/WCC especially.

There's more in-depth stuff to do, but hopefully these should get you started. AlexJ (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further PR by Apterygial (talk · contribs)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, numbers less than ten should be spelt out, as should positions less than ten (so 3=three, 3rd=third).
• The very last sentence needs a cite. And remove the italics, the reader should be able to place their own emphasis.
• I'm not sure the first two quotes in the post-race section need to be block quotes. Integrate them into the text with quotation marks.
• My personal policy is not to use images of the cars from another GP, as this gives the impression that the images were taken at this GP. There are plenty of images simply of the drivers that you can use.
• A few sentences in the race section are without cites, particularly those at the end of paragraphs.
• "On lap 52, Heidfeld set a new fastest lap time, a 1:15.987. He was the only driver to go under 16 seconds all day." The obvious problem here is that he didn't go under 16 seconds, but one minute 16 seconds.
• Quoteboxes are always fun, and break up the text well.

You've done a fantastic job getting the article to this point, and I want to congratulate you for that. I see now you said you haven't done post-race, so you can ignore my comments there. My advice before you go to GAN would be to get onto a copyeditor (maybe Diniz and Ceranthor, who is listed at MII, but he is currently on trial). Get AlexJ to have another quick look, he has a sharper eye than me and should pick up a lot of stuff I missed. Nice work, Apterygial 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Diniz (talk · contribs)

Here are my suggestions for improving the article:

• As AlexJ has already siad, the prose could do with some tightening up. I'd be happy to do this at some point, if you require assistance.
• One of the things I remember about this race is that McLaren introduced a major upgrade to the front of the car which accounted for some of Hamilton's advantage. AFAIK, Kovalainen could not use the modification as it did not suit his driving style. I'll be able to source this in a couple of days when I get home.

Update: I've added a couple of sentences sourced from the Autosport race report. Feel free to improve it!--Diniz(talk) 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, it says that Hamilton led for the first 35 laps, which is not strictly true as he did not lead through all of the first pit-stop window.
• In the background section, McLaren is the only team whose engine supplier is named in addition to the name of the chassis constructor (where the two are different). Is there a reason for this?

Reason I copied this list of teams from the FA 2008 Japanese Grand Prix, so I didn't change it. Darth Newdar (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the Constructors' Championship, Ferrari were leading with 96 points, 14 points ahead of BMW Sauber, whom at this stage were actually ahead of McLaren, who had 72 points." I think the "actually ahead" should be qualified by something along the lines of "despite Hamilton tying for the lead of the Drivers' Championship...". Perhaps Kovalainen should be mentioned as well, i.e. his comparatively low points score?
• Regarding the recap of the British GP, I think it would make sense to include mentions of what happened to the other drivers mentioned in the same section (Räikkönen, Massa, Kubica and Heidfeld), and also the fact that it was a particularly dreadful race for Massa, one of the principle championship contenders at this point in the season.
• From the practice and qualifying session, "Sébastien Bourdais had a mechanical problem with flywheel sensor" - I think there's a missing word in that sentence.
• "Alonso continued his strong practice form at number four". I don't like this wording; it sounds like an address. :P
• "Massa was second." This sentence is redundant, as the information that Massa was Hamilton's closest rival is given in the previous sentence.
• Was any action taken against Vettel after Piquet's complaint following qualifying, or was a protest even made? This information would be a good addition to the article.
• In the race section, "fourth-seventh" also sounds a bit redundant, as "fourth" would work just as well - after all, each and every car in that train was fighting for fourth position overall!
• "Kazuki Nakajima span his Williams": is "span" correct, or "spun" (I'm not actually sure)?

Note I have changed this to "spun" as I think that is correct. Darth Newdar (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How did Massa pass Kovalainen? All I can see at present is that he failed to do it at the start, but that he was second to Hamilton later on.

Note: Thank you for pointing that out, belive it or not, the very first sentence was totally wrong! Massa qualified second, started second, and was never passed by Kovalainen! So Massa did not try to pass Kovalainen! Darth Newdar (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Points-scoring/paying places/positions" sounds better than "points places/positions".
• It should be mentioned that Piquet was on a one-stopper; the only driver in the field to do so (I think, from memory), which resulted in him stopping just before the SC period and gaining the big advantage.
• "McLaren believed they had enough fuel for Hamilton to stay out then pull away when the safety car went." A citation for this sentence would be nice; AUTOCOURSE should cover it. ;)
• A run-down of the race order following the mass pit-stop would be useful, e.g. the fact that Kubica passed Kovalainen as a result (the re-pass is mentioned already).
• Heidfeld's FL should be mentioned before his final stop, as this is when it was set.
• It would be nice if the "easy" part of Hamilton's pass on Massa could be qualified in some way. I suppose it means that Hamilton did not have to change his line once he had chosen it, and that he was alongside Massa by the braking zone for the hairpin? Giving the location of the pass would also be a good addition, as the "similar move" on Piquet is then mentioned.
• "Heidfeld, again with surprisingly good race form" - Heidfeld's race form was good all year; it was qualifying that was his problem. Indeed, one could argue that a stronger race pace would be expected from him. It should be qualified with something like "in comparison to his qualifying performance".

Note I have deleted the whole thing, and just put that Heidfeld threatened Massa in the closing laps. Darth Newdar (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's an 8th, which should be changed to eighth, in the final paragraph of the race section.
• Post-race: regarding Fisichella's penalty, lapped cars are allowed to unlap themselves, but only at a certain point during the SC period. This point should be clarified.
• Personally, I would put the Fisichella and Glock information after the press conference, as the podium finishers are more important to the race.
• I don't think "pit-stop" is a recognised verb; "make a pit-stop" would be a better choice of words in my opinion.
  • Note: "pit" is a recognised verb, and pit stop should be used in lieu of pit-stop. Apterygial 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be good if you could get the McLaren team's angle on Hamilton's strategy, as he says that the decision not to stop was their decision.

Question: Where would I source this? I have found no quotes at all from the teams in any of my references. Darth Newdar (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might be able to find a printed source when I get back home. Failing that, Ron Dennis makes some comments in the season review DVD which I could transcribe.--Diniz(talk) 13:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some quotations from Dennis and Norbert Haug here.--Diniz(talk) 13:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone through the AUTOCOURSE annual and the relevant week's Autosport magazine, and have posted the McLaren quotations included therein on the article's talk page.--Diniz(talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The gap between the Hamilton and Mass" - typos!
• Another detail that affects the entire article to close my initial review with: the code   (edit this page and look at the text; can't get it to display) should be placed between every number and measurement to ensure that they appear on the same line, e.g. 67 laps, 15 seconds.

I hope these suggestions are useful!--Diniz(talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the body of the article, names should be in full and linked at first mention, and not linked and shortened to last names only in subsequent mentions. There's a lot of late links and strange shortenings in the article. Apterygial 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I should qualify that the links needed resets after the table of contents (the body of the article), so links given in the lead need to be given in the body as well. Apterygial 12:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]