Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monaco Grand Prix/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Monaco Grand Prix edit

Has just had a PR and I've fixed all the notable problems that were pointed out. Seemed as a good time as any to make a bit. Buc 18:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that peer review. Warhol13 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are the last 2 refs not cited in the article, making them appear different from the first 36? Mr.Z-mantalk 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Buc 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm not keen on the "Triple Crown" section. Why is it similar to the Tennis' Grand Slam any more than any other sport's equivalent? Why do the races taking place in May make it more difficult? Isn't picking Montoya out specifically recentism, haven't others won two legs of the race? Trebor 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the tennis grand slam bit. Your second question is arnswered for you in the article. Montoya is picked out because he's the only active driver to do it. Buc 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but isn't that systemic bias towards recent times? How many others have achieved two-legs, if the number's low you could list them all. Trebor 17:43, 5 February 2007
  • The reference to a Grand Slam was included because other readers found it difficult to understand what the Triple Crown was - they were picturing an actual award, rather than a more conceptual achievement. Tennis was just because from my POV it seemed like probably the best known version for someone not familiar with sports. Golf would do equally well - I'm not sure how widely the term 'Grand Slam' is understood without a sporting reference.4u1e 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that being in May is more difficult is as follows: You have to qualify (set a competitive time in practice) for both races, which take place on opposite sides of the Atlantic, as well as actually competing. Provided the races are not on the same weekend it is do-able. But - For a good chance of qualifying well at Indy, you need to be present at each weekend in the month of May. One of those will normally clash with qualifying for and the race at Monaco, so you have to compromise your Indy qualification if you are going to appear at Monaco as well. This makes it difficult/impossible to compete at both in the same year, which makes it rather more difficult to fit both into one career. Le Mans is easier to squeeze into an F1 or IRL race schedule, and it is easier to be competitive there later into your career as experience tends to edge out pace over a 24 hour race. (Example - Martin Brundle was a front runner there long after his F1 career ended).
Perhaps add an abbreviated version of the above, to make it explicitly clear. Trebor 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought I had done :D. I will revise. 4u1e 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - if Trebor is happy? 4u1e 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is mention only of Montoya systemic bias? Not really. Off the top of my head Mario Andretti and A. J. Foyt are the other two who have done two legs, so it is easy enough to mention them as well. However, I would suggest that the interest in Montoya is different in nature - Andretti and Foyt are interesting because they came close. Montoya is interesting because he may still do it. I believe that is a genuine difference, although it will be inherently 'recentist'. Am I being at all convincing? :D 4u1e 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's a good point which I didn't take into account. But is there any problem with mentioning the other two as well? Would help flesh out the section a bit. Trebor 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the other reason is that neither Foyt or Andretti has actually won the Monaco Grand Prix, so we're getting a bit tangential to the point of the article! (I should also explain at this point, that there is another version of the Triple Crown which substitutes the F1 world championship for the Monaco GP. It's this alternative definition which Andretti meets, having won the F1 crown and the Indy 500. Foyt has won at Indy and Le Mans). 4u1e 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I'll leave it up to you then. Trebor 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I'm not good with 1a, but choppy stuff like this "Like many European races, the race predates the World Championships. The first race was organised by Antony Noghes through the "Automobile Club de Monaco". It was won by William Grover-Williams (a.k.a. "Williams") driving a Bugatti." in the lead isn't really good enough. There are also long convoluted sentences like "Like many European races, the Monaco Grand Prix predates the organised World Championships; the Principality's first Grand Prix race was organised in 1929 by Antony Noghes, under the auspices of Prince Louis II through the "Automobile Club de Monaco" (A.C.M.) of which Alexandre Noghes (Antony's father) was the founding president. " - and other stop-start things like "Brazil's Ayrton Senna has won the race the most, with six victories, five consecutive from 1989 to 1993, earning him the title "Master of Monaco".". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are also not filled out properly. Where applicable, the author and date of publication, and publisher, must also be filled out. And use pp34-35 not "Page...". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Notable races" appears to be original research. How do you determine which ones are interesting? I would say that the 2004 one was very interesting because of the pile-ups, especially JPM-MS and RS-FA tunnel incidents? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Blnguyen - your points are fair and when I get time I will try and do something about them (but if anyone else wants to do it, that's also fine by me!) Re OR - is it really OR to come up with a list of notable races? We make decisions about whether articles are notable all the time, in deciding whether to write them or keep them. We could probably find a list of notable races and transfer that into this article, but would we not then be in danger of copyvio? I suppose I would be happier if the refs for each race included someone's view that the race was notable. Is the 2004 race going to be seen as notable in 10 years time or in 20, when probably no-one will remember RS and JPM in F1? 4u1e 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that it is- If you say "races with safety car incident/disqualification", then you have a clear demarcation of what the inclusion criteria is. However, when the writer judges for himself what is good, what is better and what is not, then that is OR. OR refers to article content, not deletion debates. I'm not sure that people will remember RS but JPM I think so mainly of his flamboyant style - people still remember Alesi for some reason. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about renaming the section "Famous moments" and re-writing it so it's about single moment rarther than the whole race. 82.6.171.18 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Damon Hill is a FA and has a "Notable battles with Michael Schumacher" section. Surely this can be taken as a precedent? Readro 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In writing an article, we make decisions about what is notable and what is not all the time - in the history of a particular team or driver some races will be mentioned and most won't. The point is that any article on Damon Hill will mention, for example, the 1993 Hungarian Grand Prix (first win), the 1994 Australian Grand Prix (clash with Schumacher), the 1997 Hungarian Grand Prix (nearly winning in an Arrows-Yamaha) and the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix (Jordan's first win). The inclusion of those races as 'notable' is not OR, because it's non-controversial and reflected in many sources. Can I suggest that what the section needs is for us to look again at the sources and make sure that this is a robust list of 'notable races' which is solidly backed up by other sources. For example, the 1984 race is listed in the '10 most controversial races' in the 'Concise Encyclopedia of F1', and appears in most pieces on Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna. We could also consider what the section is called. The discussion would be better carried out on the talk page of the article, I think. I'm going to be out of contact for a few days, though. Sorry! 4u1e 07:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made a suggestion for a re-structure on the talk page, which may address Blnguyen's concern. 4u1e 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Suggestion implemented - which is basically a reworking of the existing material into a more prose-y format. Hope this addresses concerns. 4u1e 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great article for a great race.--Skully Collins Edits 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good to me. 195.99.247.27 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object (for now) Three things: a) I do not agree with Blnguyen's point that a list of 'notable races' is OR (Comments from other reviewers?), but I do think we need to look at the list again, as I'm not sure some of those listed are truly notable ('65, '92, '93 and '06 are the weakest candidates). b) References. We're a bit too reliant on web references, including potted histories from ticket sales sites (at least one of which looks to be a copy of a previous version of this article!). I'd like better hardcopy sources, like the recent article in Motorsport, for example. c) Writing - I suspect can still be worked on to flow better. I will work on these in the next few days, and once fixed I will change to 'support'. Cheers. 4u1e 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think we're looking a lot better on the reference front now. I removed the sentence about frogmen being employed, because I didn't think that the F1 Happy Fun Club hosted on Geocities qualified as a reliable reference. There's still a little more that I think we can fix. Readro 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • :D Good move, but there's still work to do. In going through the early part I've already found one reference that didn't strictly say what was written, and there are still lots of ticket booking places. I'm having trouble finding time to work on this, but will plough on (slowly!) 4u1e 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • References cleared through again for redundancy, reliability or for not illustrating the point they were referencing! I'm happy-ish with the ones that are there now, but formatting needs sorting out - some are in cite.php format and others are not, and there are a number of 'citation needed' tags in the article now which need covering with good quality sources. 4u1e 22 February 2007 13:33
  • Object. There are still some unreferenced paragraphs. 'Triple Crown' and 'Glamour' sections should be merged, preferably under a more telling heading, such as 'Importance'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But it will take time, i'm still working through my own snag list from above. 4u1e 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Deleted instead - it wasn't really adding much anyway. 4u1e 22 February 2007 13:33
Withdrawn then. ShadowHalo 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Monaco_Grand_Prix/archive1&oldid=1066816546"