Talk:2015 Mexican Grand Prix

Track layout image

Hey everyone! I would like to ask you about your opinion on the track layout change graphic in the article. I think it is unnecessary and takes up too much space, and should rather stay in the Mexican Grand Prix article. What do you think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Mexican Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list deficient areas that need be resolved, if any. Saskoiler (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall, the prose is quite good. It reads well, and displays good spelling and grammar. I have listed a number of minor items to address. See "Prose" below. I believe these are all quite straightforward to address. (Update: they have all been addressed now.) The most significant issue affecting the readability of this article is the use of nationalities and constructor names in place of driver names. Phrases like "the German" are ambiguous, even if there were only one German racer in the field. Similarly, unqualified phrases like "the Red Bull" or "the Red Bulls" are ambiguous, particularly in a race narrative where drivers are passing each other over and over. In general, I would encourage the use of driver names almost all the time for clarity. Otherwise, the article is only accessible to racing fans with an intimate knowledge of the team/national associations.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead - The lead paragraphs are a good synopsis of the article as a whole. However, see below ("Lead") for a couple of minor issues. Layout - The layout of the article meets the Mos/layout criteria. It is intuitively organized (for a casual reader like me who isn't familiar with other articles), and the organization matches that used in previous Grand Prix articles (good for readers of many in the series). Words to watch - The article is compliant. I did not find any problems with these words. Fiction - n/a List incorporation - There are four embedded lists, all in table form. Each is appropriately done, and consistent with other articles in this series.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a "References" section with 43 references. There are no dangling direct URL links in the prose itself; all are contained within the "References" section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations are from reliable sources, and support the statements being made in the article. Although this passes the criteria as-is, I would recommend denoting citations to PDF documents with a "(PDF)" to further improve this article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There appears to be no original research. The article carefully supports all facts, quotations, or opinions with citations.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There appears to be no copyright or plagiarism problems. The only common words that I found between this article and source materials are direct quotations found in both.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects of the topic (historical context, background, practice, qualifying, race, and post-race) are all addressed in the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article achieves excellent balance among the various aspects. This is a great example of an article focused on a single sports event.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is written in a neutral tone without editorial bias. Treatment of items such as penalties or crashes is fairly represented.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. Indeed, there have only been three edits so far in 2016. There is no evidence in the edit history going back several months of an edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I have checked all images, and each one has a suitable license status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are well chosen, and I commend the careful placement of images throughout the article to be relevant to the paragraphs/sections they appear beside. Most of the captions are well-chosen, but I have a few minor suggestions for improvement. See below: "Images" Update: These have been addressed.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this is a well-written article about a sports event. I admire the attention to thoroughly cite high quality sources throughout, and to adopt very consistent choices across the various articles in the 2015 Grand Prix series. This makes it easier to review and, more importantly, easier for readers to enjoy and follow. I congratulate all of the contributors to this article. I believe the GA criteria are substantially met, with a few exceptions as listed below this table. I am hopeful that it will be straightforward to resolve them. Once they are resolved, I am prepared to pass this GA review. Until then, I will mark this review on hold. Update: All items have been resolved (or explained), and I'm now passing this GA review.

Items to Resolve

The following is a list of items which require attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved (or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed).

Images

• Caption of the infobox image is "The layout of the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez", but I think the first word could be cut to give a more succinct, powerful caption: "Layout of the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez"), as is done for the Canadian, British, and Hungarian articles in this set. (WP:CAP#Succinctness)

 Done

• Caption which is now "The podium ceremony" could be improved by identifying the three people in it (and perhaps others). Perhaps they are obvious to racing fans, but to a casual reader (like me), they are anonymous. Something like "The podium ceremony, with Hamilton, Rosberg, and Bottas (left to right)".

 Done

• Would a caption on the "Lap Leaders" image be useful? As a casual reader, I'm not familiar with the format and I can easily grasp the meaning, but something like this might help: "Rosberg led throughout, except for two three lap exceptions" (You can probably come up with a better phrasing.)

I need to bring this matter into the WikiProject, since I cannot just change this long-standing precedent without consulting the other editors. I will come back to this. Maybe a way can be found through adding an alt-text... Zwerg Nase (talk)

Lead

• In the opening paragraph, this sentence is quite long: "The race, which was contested ... since 1992." The length of the sentence reduces the accessibility of this lead paragraph a bit. Recommend that it be divided into two shorter, simpler sentences. (It can easily be divided near "... season, and marked ...".)

 Done

• The date should probably be incorporated into the lead. (Every other article in the 2015 Grand Prix series has the date in the opening paragraph.)

 Done

• There is no mention of any background, practice, or qualifying session information in the lead, and I think there probably should be. These sections contribute quite a lot to the article overall. A few sentences should suffice. Maybe something about the fast speeds expected? Who had pole position?

 Done (pole and practice)

These have all been addressed. Thank you. Criteria 1b is now satisfied. Saskoiler (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• Lead
  • I find this sentence confusing "Both Ferrari drivers... Ferrari was classified", because it isn't clear (to a casual reader like me) what the relationship is between the Ferrari drivers and Vettel, Räikkönen, Rosberg, and Bottas. To make it clearer, I recommend restructuring it something like this:
    "Both Ferrari drivers—Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Räikkönen—retired after crashes, each dropping one position in the Championship standings relative to Rosberg and Bottas, respectively. Consequently, neither Ferrari was classified for the first time since the 2006 Australian Grand Prix."

 Done

• Background
  • I can understand the "first corner complex" means turns 1, 2, and 3 on the layout diagram (right?), but the relationship isn't clear with phrases like "the second sector", "the final sector", and especially "the Peraltada corner". I recommend adding details such as "the second sector (turns four through six)" to make this relationship clearer.
  • I don't know what Peraltada means. Is it a generic racing term (if so, why is it capitalized?), or is it a nickname of a specific feature of this course? Depending on that, I recommend either linking Peraltada to wikt:peraltar, explaining what it is, or both.

 Done I hope it can be understood now. The Peraltada is the former banked corner shown in grey on the circuit map.

• • "DRS" should be written out on first usage, e.g. "drag reduction system (DRS)"

 Done

• • Is a phrase like "on the main straight" common in racing terminology? Seems like this should be "on the main straight section". (Ditto for "long main straight" in next sentence.)

This is how it is used in racing terms. It is one straight, not a straight section.

• • "delivers the fastest speeds seen during..." → "resulted in the fastest speeds recorded during..." . Also, shouldn't this sentence be moved to the "Free practice" section? The "fastest speeds" can't be observed until they started practicing on the track, and that's what the cited source refers to. Otherwise, the sentence would have to be something like "it was predicted that... would result in the fastest speeds ...", and that would need a different citation.

 Done

• Free practice
  • What are "intermediate tyres" and "medium compound"? Can this be wiki-linked somewhere, or explained?

Explained it under background.

• • "Even on the dry tyres, still many drivers were caught out by the conditions..." → "Even on the dry tyres, many drivers were tricked by the conditions..."

I feel that "tricked" is even more colloquial than "caught out", to be honest...

• • "overheating in his rear breaks" → "overheating rear breaks"

 Done

• • "forcing him back to the pits" → "forcing him to make a pit stop"

That would make no sense, because going back to the pits does not mean that he made a "pit stop". He went into the garage for a longer period of time. I personally feel that the term "the pits" can be used here due to it being a common term, but of course, that is debateable.

• • "set the most timed laps" → "achieved the most timed laps" or "recorded the most timed laps" or "completed the most timed laps"?

 Done

• • "a 1m25.990s" → "at 1m25.990s"

 Done

• • "With the tarmac on track" → "With the track tarmac"

 Done

• • Wikilink: "red flags"

 Done

• Qualifying
  • "as did both Manor Marussias" → "as did both Manor Marussia drivers" (or cars) . Also, why are these referred to as "Manor Marussia" here in prose, but as "Marussia-Ferrari" in the tables?

 Done Manor Marussia was the team name for the 2015 season, while the car itself ran under the name Marussia only because it was built the season before by the constructor solely known as "Marussia". The result table also gives the power unit-supplier, which was Ferrari in 2015.

• • "to challenge Rosberg for pole position": I would wikilink "pole position" the first time it is used in prose here

 Done

• • "both Williams" → "both Williams cars (Bottas and Massa)"

 Done

• Race
  • "In turn 5, the German..." It is not clear which German is referred to here: Rosberg or Vettel? (Or Hülkenberg?)

 Done Changed it to "he", which should be OK since Vettel is the last name mentioned.

• • " The two Mercedes soon opened a gap to the Red Bulls" → Again, to an uninformed reader, it's not clear which drivers are meant by "two Mercedes" or "Red Bulls". If a reader has to continually flip down to the tables to form these associations, it can be very frustrating. Please try to eliminate all ambiguities like this.

 Done Hopefully clearer now.

• • "Sergio Pérez and Carlos Sainz Jr. got into a fight for sixth place, with the Mexican" → Similar to previous comments, who is the Mexican here? As an uninformed reader, I don't know. Sergio Pérez? and Carlos Sainz? someone else?

 Done

• • "Since the stop took longer than expected, he rejoined just before Sainz Jr., who used the momentum to pass the Force India into turn one." Similar to previous... who is the Force India?

 Done

• • "as the Briton rejoined behind Rosberg" ... who is the Briton?

 Done

• • "between the two Mercedes" ... who are?

It is actually established in the lead who the Mercedes drivers are. But well...

• • "On lap 48, Mercedes changed strategies..." → "On lap 48, the Mercedes team changed strategies..."

I do not feel that this is really necessary. I wouldn't write "The Real Madrid team changed their tactic" in a football article either. Mercedes is the name of the team.

• • "with the Red Bull driver"... who is?

 Done

• • "on the two Red Bulls ahead of him" ... who are?

Established earlier.

• • "neither were able to overtake" → "neither were able to overtake him"

I am talking about several situations here.

Saskoiler (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler: I made a large number of changes now. Please re-evaluate :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all the changes. I have re-evaluated the article. Pass. Saskoiler (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Mexican Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160411120148/http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/07/24/video-reveals-planned-changes-mexicos-f1-track/ to http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/07/24/video-reveals-planned-changes-mexicos-f1-track/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)