Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Turkish Grand Prix/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

2008 Turkish Grand Prix edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what needs to be done to get this article to GA-standard. I am doing this as part of Apterygial's My Insane Idea project. Anything you can spot wrong in the article (and I'm sure there are lots of mistakes!) I want to know!

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Apterygial (talk · contribs)

If you don't mind, I'll add comments as they occur to me, and a 'full' review will probably take me about a week to complete.

  • The first big thing that jumps out at me is the size of the practice coverage. Three massive paragraphs dealing with the most inconsequential part of on-track activity at a GP weekend seems a little much, and should really be reduced to just who were quickest and who crashed or got penalties. It is worth bearing in mind we don't know what the teams are doing in practice, many run race simulations, carrying more fuel and are thus slower (as BMW generally do) than those who practice hot laps (Williams are notorious at doing this), all of which makes practice almost irrelevant.
  • I think, and this is a concern left over from 2008 German Grand Prix, that you rely far too much on block quotes to do the talking for you in the post race section. I'll use them, but with the exception of the box I'll introduce them and certainly won't use more than two in the section, certainly not as long as what we have here. An introduction of "Massa also said" is startlingly superficial, and doesn't really make me want to keep reading. More prose percentage, please.
    • How does it look now? Darth Newdar (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you can also make some of those sentences your own words, for example Raikkonen said that, "We chose to use the front wing as it takes too long to change it" could be worded your own way (and Raikkonen should be Räikkönen). Apterygial 06:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links section needs fixing. The ManipeF1 link shouldn't be there and the FIA link needs to be renamed, and doesn't link to the FIA anyway.
  • I'm quite surprised you didn't use the FIA race facts, a source I regard as invaluable, and claims superiority to the Autosport Live source you used extensively on two fronts: it is written retrospectively and is thus more reliable for real information, and it gets its laps right, which the Live source often fails to do. But you should use both, together, along with the BBC source which takes a little bit to find, they form a great collection of information with which you distil the race.
    • I think you could have gone a little over the top here. For any of those facts with two cites, are there any that you can cut down to one? If one source has the facts you are referencing, you don't need two. Apterygial 09:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have cut most of the double references, apart from three which are needed. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{reflist|2}}, please, you notice the difference with Firefox.
  • I'd avoid having single sentence paragraphs, as with Massa's in the Background section. Is there anything you can merge it into? Having said that, I think the fact would be better worked into Post-race, seeing managed to make it three consecutive victories.
  • Might be a good idea (though Bourdais may object) to mention why Toro Rosso didn't have enough spare parts.
  • You could probably cut the bit in Ron Dennis' quote about Hamilton's points, you talk about it later so the repetition isn't necessary.
  • "Bourdais failed to comment on the incident." Does this mean he failed to comment or that you failed to find him commenting? If the former, it needs a cite.
    • I found both Fisichella and Nakajima commenting on their collision, but Fisichella blamed Bourdais. Bourdais, however, said nothing about it - at least, not on GrandPrix.com, BBC Sport, or Autosport.com. I was trying to let readers know that Bourdais did not say anything, rather than them supposing that the article doesn't contain what Bourdais said. I suppose the best thing to do is to get rid of that sentence, right? Darth Newdar (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say so. We really don't have any idea whether he said anything at all, he could even have commented in French, which would make it a lot harder to find. Apterygial 01:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick non-binding question, why are you using the quotebox in P&Q for a Friday quote, wouldn't a Saturday quote be more pertinent?
I have used a post-qualifying quote from Massa. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon you should cut down the Post-race quotebox a little, it's almost entering the realm of copying to much from sources (there's a policy somewhere...)
    • I've deleted one sentence. I'm not sure whether anything else can be deleted without affecting other parts of the quote. Would you get rid of any of what's there?
      • I've deleted a bit. We don't really need the drivers congratulating his team if we can help it, all the drivers do it so it doesn't really add much to the article. Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I quite liked the sentence from Hamilton saying that he was looking forward to the Monaco Grand Prix, is it possible to have this back in? Darth Newdar (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure. Add it in (with an introduction) next to Ron Dennis' quote. Apterygial 09:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "span off" correct English? I'm not really sure. Apterygial 09:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think (although I'm not sure either) that "spun off" is correct. Darth Newdar (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are the FIA?
  • "Bourdais commented on his retirement: "Something broke at the back of the car, I don't know what it was yet."" Do we know now?
Umm... well, according to Franz Tost (found on GrandPrix.com) "...Bourdais had a problem at Turn 12, which the data reveals as a technical failure that we will now investigate." I don't think, however, that any Toro Rosso people told the public what they investiaged (as far as I know anyway). Darth Newdar (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best I could find (even Autocourse is lacking) is f1.com which says it was a rear suspension failure. Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now put that on both the classification table and the race. Does the classification table need a ref for it or not? Just thinking that most tables don't, but the rear suspension failure isn't mentioned anywhere else. Also, does it need to be put in the post-race section? Darth Newdar (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put the ref next to the other one down the bottom of the table. In Post-race, I think you can have "Something broke at the back of the car ... Going into turn 12, I braked at the usual point and the car went sideways, I felt the right rear corner of the car drop and it spun me round." Apterygial 09:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just looking at it now, and I'm thinking, wow, is that that a big lead! It looks like Diniz did a bit of expansion work on it, but now it looks a little long. Do we really need that much race detail in the lead? Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massa claimed pole and Räikkönen fourth, the two Ferrari cars sandwiching the McLarens of Heikki Kovalainen and Hamilton in second and third respectively. In fourth was Massa's teammate, Räikkönen. At the first corner Räikkönen clipped Kovalainen's rear tyre and gave him a puncture. This forced Kovalainen to make a pit stop, dropping him to the back of the field. Also on the first lap, Force India's Giancarlo Fisichella braked too late and slammed into the back of Williams driver Kazuki Nakajima with sufficent force to launch his car into an airborne flight over Nakjima. Both cars retired as a result of the collision. The safety car was deployed after a collision between Force India's Giancarlo Fisichella and Williams driver Kazuki Nakajima, but only remained out for one lap. During the course of the race, Hamilton, intending to make one more pit stop than both Ferrari drivers due to concerns over his rate of tyre wear, was faster than Massa due to carrying a lighter fuel load and overtook him on lap 24. However, after Hamilton had made his third pit stop, he rejoined in second behind Massa but in front of the Championship leader, Räikkönen. The top three would remain like this for the rest of the race. Massa crossed the line to win the race, with Hamilton 3.779 seconds behind, and Räikkönen a further half-second behind. Robert Kubica, Nick Heidfeld, Fernando Alonso, Mark Webber and Nico Rosberg filled the remaining points-scoring positions, whilst Kovalainen could only recover to twelfth place after his early delay.

  • OK. I'm just thinking that when it makes portal I'll have to cut it down the 200 words, and that looks pretty daunting at the moment. Apterygial 09:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does that look? Darth Newdar (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine. A longish lead shouldn't get you caught out at GAN, but I always like to err on the side of caution. Apterygial 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note my point way above about the use of double references.

'Snuff for now. Apterygial 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2008_Turkish_Grand_Prix/archive2&oldid=1136085703"