Talk:1995 Brazilian Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to leave some comments. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I was preparing for a wait of a couple of months! ;) --Midgrid(talk) 17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Images have appropriate rationales. The article uses images of drivers from other GP events, sometimes different years. The question is raised if this is appropriate. I'm aware that such mismatched images are frequently used on GP articles, so the question must have been raised and answered at some point. There is also the note about the use of cigarette advertising on the Gerhard Berger image. Ideally the article would have images of drivers and cars taken at the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix; alternatively the images would be fairly neutral, such as the one of Mika Häkkinen where he does not appear in driving kit, and also identified as to when the image was taken so the reader is not mislead into thinking that is how a driver looked at the time of the race. The current use of mismatched images may not be a deal breaker, though I would appreciate the situation being discussed, and - if possible - a pointer to previous discussions. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The image of Hill is from the French GP. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the captions of Häkkinen and Hill to make it clear when the pictures were taken. All the images used are either the only one of the subject available, or were taken closer in time to the event than the alternatives. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any freely-licensed images taken at the event, and I believe it is preferable to have some generic images rather than none at all. I don't believe this issue has been discussed before, as the F1 race report articles that have been previously reviewed at this level have usually either been (a) recent enough for there to be free images available on Flickr; or (b) old enough for the copyright on images taken at the event to have expired. Exceptions are the 1995 Japanese and Pacific Grands Prix articles, which also use generic images of the drivers, and the 1995 British Grand Prix article, for which I was able to source free images from the event. As for the issue of cigarette advertising, I believe that it is not gratuitous, as it shows how Berger looked as a driver in roughly the same time period (if the image was from the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix with him in his Ferrari overalls, the Marlboro branding would still be present as the brand sponsored both Ferrari and McLaren during this period). I think that WP:NOTCENSORED might also apply here.--Midgrid(talk) 17:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked back at previous GP GANs I have done, and in some the issue of the images has come up. One person said that he was told that mismatched pictures of the drivers are OK, but not mismatched pictures of the cars. I think it's a grey area. I don't think there's an actual policy or guideline against it. And provided the images are captioned to indicate when and where the photos were taken, it would be clear that there is no intention of misleading the reader. I think that they are OK. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• 'Berger called the sport "a joke"' - In the main body it is clear that it is the FIA he is talking about, and we have at least one other quote which mentions the FIA. It would be clearer if it said - 'Berger called the FIA "a joke"' - though the source may not allow that. I cannot access the source readily. In the book is it clear he is talking about the FIA? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the book either, but I've messaged a major contributor to this article who does.--Midgrid(talk) 14:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The full quotation is "I no longer understand anything. Formula One has become a joke." I have edited the article accordingly.--Midgrid(talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Article is neutral, stable, balanced, and detailed without being excessive in any one area. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• I am wondering if the lead adequately summarises the main points. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• After checking the sources I think that more could be said about the fuel checking. This was the first race that new procedures and equipment were used - and that should be mentioned both in the lead, and in the background section. The process should be explained a bit more, and which cars were checked and which were not should be mentioned. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 21:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added more information about the fuel regulations and scrutineering process in the background and post-race sections.--Midgrid(talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Lead should be built up per WP:Lead. There is a lot of important detail in the main body which is not mentioned in the lead. I can't see anything from the Background or Qualifying sections in the lead, for example.SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead by about 1,500 characters.--Midgrid(talk) 16:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well cited, and sources checked do support what is said. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On hold 7 days

This is a clearly written article which is well cited and conveys a lot of information in a readable and easily understood form. The two GA criteria that the article doesn't quite meet are 1(b) MoS compliance for lead .... and 3 (a) Major aspects. I'll put the review on hold for 7 days to allow time to:

• Build the lead per WP:Lead
• Include more information about the fuel checking.

I'll inform major contributors and projects. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've tried to address both of these problems.--Midgrid(talk) 16:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Though I note that the lead still doesn't have adequate details from Background and Practice and qualifying there is no mention of the bumpy condition of the track, the drivers' boycott, the memories of Ayrton Senna, the new fuel rigs, the weight limit changes, etc. You also have both Schumacher and Hill starting from pole. Also, the details in the lead about Mansel are not as clear as in the main body.

The items I've mentioned are covered in detail in the main body - so if they are considered important (and I would agree they are important) then a mention of them in the lead would be appropriate. The lead should be able to stand alone as an adequate summary of the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix. The bumpy track could be summarised as "despite resurfacing work, the track proved bumpy enough that several drivers complained"; Senna could be summarised as "various tributes were paid over the weekend to the Brazilian driver Ayrton Senna who had died at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix", etc. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead (and corrected the embarrassing error!) to include these additional aspects. To be honest, I don't want to go into any great detail with any of them except the fuel disqualifications, as, although they were all important background issues during the event, they are all rather peripheral compared to the race result itself. For this same reason, I have put them at the end of the lead, despite the background section coming first in the main text.--Midgrid(talk) 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Organising material in the lead according to importance is appropriate, and in my view the better way of doing things. In that sense the lead is like a newspaper - you get the really important points in the first paragraph, then arrange material by decreasing importance according to the principle that the reader will at some point lose time or interest. Indeed, News style is mentioned and linked to in the guidance in WP:Lead. We have to organise and write our articles for a variety of readers, and bear in mind that most are simply looking for a brief summary of the most important points of a topic, while others will be happy to read an entire article from start to finish. Though it feels odd to have information in the lead in a different order to the main body, the lead is serving a different purpose. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Listing

Good work. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you have any articles that need reviewing?--Midgrid(talk) 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at the moment. I tend to hop around a bit, and find it hard to stick on one article for long. If you do fancy helping out, I am reviewing Willie Nelson, and as I have got into it, I have found it needs rather more copy-editing than I first realised. The nominator is not up to it, and neither is someone who tried a bit of copy-editing, so I have been doing some, and I am getting to the point where I may be getting too involved and so would appreciate a second opinion before I pass it. There is a bit of work still to be done, but I feel it could be listed with just a decent copyedit, so am reluctant to let it go at this point. A second opinion either now or in a few days time when hopefully I will have found the time to work through the rest of the article, would be appreciated. Alternatively, if you want to pitch in and help with the copy-editing, that would be great! SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)