Talk:1995 British Grand Prix

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1995 British Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1

Hi, I am reviewing this article, any comments welcome.--Sarastro1 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, this seems a good article. It is very well written, but there are a few parts which need clearing up.

Lead

• While the lead summarises the race very well, it seems a little short for the length of the article. There is very little comment about the background or qualifying, such as the effect of the weather.
  • Whilst the practice and qualifying sessions were important in determining the outcome of the race, the race itself is significantly more important overall, and I would only expect practice and qualifying to be mentioned in the lead (beyond who started from pole position) if a top driver started out of position, or if there was a big crash, injury or something similar. I've expanded it slightly, but I'm not sure what else I can add without going into a great deal more detail.--Midgrid(talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• "This promoted the battling Herbert and Coulthard into the fight for the lead." It is not clear what this means to the casual reader: battling is not a suitable word. It could be re-phrased as "Herbert and Coulthard, who were fighting for third and fourth".
  • Done - although I've kept "battling", to avoid repeating "fight" and "fighting".--Midgrid(talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Background

Very detailed and informative, but a few points to clear up.

• "the defunct Lotus team's test driver " Defunct is possibly an informal word and it does not explain what happened to Lotus.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "the underfunded team": why were they underfunded? In what sense? How was it affecting them?
  • Footwork (and several other teams) did not have enough money to cover their bills over the course of the season, and needed to take on a paying driver to survive the season. I've (hopefully) clarified this, but I don't want to go into too much detail in this article.--Midgrid(talk) 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "possible spare seat" seems to be jargon and while the casual reader may understand it, it is not very clear
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "as the only World Champion in the field " Perhaps some comment is needed on when he won the championship. Also, "field" is close to jargon.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "had only completed two racing laps" is not clear for the casual reader, needs expansion.
  • I've actually removed "racing", so it now reads "completed two laps in the two previous Grands Prix", which is hopefully clearer, as it avoids the unnecessary distinction between racing laps during the Grand Prix, and practice/qualifying/slow etc. laps in the practice and qualifying sessions.--Midgrid(talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• The list of modifications seems very detailed, to the point where it is meaningless to a casual reader unless a lot of links are followed. Could it be summarised in layman's terms? Is it necessary to include so much detail?
  • Trust me, it's about as general as I can get without losing the entire paragraph, considering the level of detail in the source material! ;) I've added a link to the Formula One car article, which unfamiliar readers should refer to, and clarified that the type numbers refer to chassis, but I'm not sure what else I can do.--Midgrid(talk) 15:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough! I'm fine with it as it is; the link helps.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Practice and qualifying

• "Hill was less than four hundredths of a second behind, from Alesi, Coulthard, Herbert and Berger; the drivers from the top three teams in the Constructors' Championship locking out the top six positions": "from Alesi, etc" needs explaining, for example "followed by". Also, "locked out" is jargon.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Hill "made a set-up change" in qualifying. What change did he make? The rest of the section gives considerable technical details; if these are included, why not include them here?
  • Unfortunately, none of my sources actually say what the change was!--Midgrid(talk) 15:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Herbert split the Ferraris in the second Benetton": jargon
  • Adjusted, but I'm not exactly sure what the problem is with the phrase.--Midgrid(talk) 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • My main issue was with the word "split". My preference would be for "came in between" or "separated" but it is not a huge issue, and having re-read it, if you prefer "split", it's ok. However, I noticed "Herbert split the Ferrari drivers in the second Benetton car, like Coulthard complaining of rear-end stability problems with his car" is probably missing a comma after Coulthard.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I've reworded it again.--Midgrid(talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "the underfunded Pacific team lacked a spare car" - repeats "underfunded". If this is a quote, it needs refs, but same reasons apply as before about this word.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 19:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Saturday free practice took place in mixed weather conditions: the session was initially dry, but was then hit by a rain shower and the track was not fully dry by its conclusion" Maybe use a synonym for the second "dry".
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 19:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Race

• This seems very long. I had a quick look at the articles mentioned in the Peer Review and also some FA class grands prix articles and none of them seemed to be as detailed as this. It is quite hard reading, particularly the long lists of drivers in each position, such as at the end of the first lap. Some of the paragraphs could also be used to break it up slightly. For example, I would have placed the start of the race in a new paragraph rather than having it in the middle of another one.
  • Let's see...
    1. My personal preference when writing articles is to tend towards a detailed way of writing that can end up being longer than similar articles by different editors.
    2. This being the case, I think that of the other F1 race report FAs, the race section in 1994 San Marino Grand Prix is not long enough, even accounting for the deaths of two drivers during the weekend. 2005 United States Grand Prix also has an extremely short race report, but this was really a special case as only six cars started the race. I think this article is comparable to the 1995 and 2008 articles that have been promoted more recently (although admittedly longer), and that the length of the race section is in proportion to the other sections.
    3. The race was quite eventful by F1 standards: lots of retirements, differing pit-stop strategies, battles for the lead and a controversial collision, so there's quite a lot of detail to fit in.
    4. Regarding listing the drivers' running order, I think it is necessary to help the reader keep track of all of the drivers, and not just the front-runners. An alternative solution would be to include a lap chart (as in 1999 San Marino Grand Prix), but I would need to discuss this with WP:F1 first.
  • So that's why I believe the race section, although detailed, is not excessively long. I'll experiment with breaking up some of the longer paragraphs shortly. :) --Midgrid(talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The length is not an enormous issue and certainly would not stop me passing it. I think the paragraphing is more of a concern because, as I say, it makes for difficult reading, certainly as the rest of the article is excellent reading! Most of the points below concern readability.--Sarastro1 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• "When the green light was lit to indicate the race start" needs a new paragraph. Also, it would be simpler to say "when the race started" as this is unnecessarily descriptive.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Barrichello pitted to serve his three laps later from seventh place and rejoined in 11th" I had to read this sentence several times to understand it. Could it be made clearer?
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "as Coulthard, also held up by Alesi behind Schumacher, took on fresh fuel and tyres earlier than planned in a bid to jump the Ferrari when it made its own visit to the pit lane." Jump is jargon.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "whilst the recovering Barrichello passed Frentzen for eighth." Recovering from what? This is jargon and needs explaining, e.g. "Barrichello had improved his place to ninth before passing Frentzen for eigth."
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Indeed, it became apparent as the race approached half-distance that Schumacher had opted for a one-stop strategy and that both he and Hill only had one stop remaining each." "Indeed" is unnecessary. Also, would it be better to explain Schumacher's strategy earlier on instead of presenting the facts as if they are unfolding? Or perhaps phrasing it as "the teams realised that..."
  • Removed "indeed". In the current F1 regulations, the fuel weight carried by each car for the race is published after qualifying, so everyone knows what strategy each driver has chosen (or at least when they will make their first scheduled pit stop); in 1995, this information was not made public, so Schumacher's strategy was not known in advance. I've therefore reworded it along the lines of your second option.--Midgrid(talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "causing terminal damage to his Footwork's suspension". Terminal is not a suitable word, it needs clarifying. For example, "irreperable" or "damage which ended his race".
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Badoer performed the same position change as his team-mate due to his stop on lap 32." The change needs explaining, as it is not obvious what this is. It is better to say "moved from X to Y".
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Salo began the second round of pit stops on the next lap, and was followed in due course by Alesi, Herbert, Barrichello, Boullion, Gachot, Blundell, Panis and Coulthard." Another example of a long list of names. Also, "in due course" is unnecessary.
• "Schumacher and Hill in close attendance" is very vague. Where were they?
  • Are you sure that "in due course" is unnecessary? If I were to remove it, the sentence would imply that all of the named drivers made pit stops on the same lap, when they actually pitted at around the same time, but not on the same lap.--Midgrid(talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You are right. On re-reading it, "in due course" is necessary and does explain what you need to say.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "On lap 46, Hill attempted a passing manoeuvre at Stowe corner, but was stymied by the presence of Boullion's lapped Sauber": stymied is informal.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "both spinning into the gravel trap and retirement from the race." In effect, this says "spinning into retirement" which is very informal. It needs rewording, for example, "which caused their retirement from the race."
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The retirement of the two leaders promoted their team-mates into a similar battle for the lead; the two almost colliding at the same corner as Coulthard tried a similar attack on Herbert." Similar is too vague; similar in what way?
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Coulthard's stop, despite jumping him ahead of Alesi, was problematic: his car's electronic failure meant that his pit-lane speed-limiter system did not work, and he exceeded the 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph) pit-lane speed limit": The penalty was a key moment in the race but it is not mentioned until he sees it on the screen. It should be spelt out here that this earned him the penalty.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Coulthard had not been informed about his stop-go penalty by the team, as they did not want to distract him, but he saw the penalty notification on one of the large television screens situated around the circuit. He passed Herbert on lap 49, but took his penalty two laps later and dropped back to third position, behind Alesi." The reader has not been told about the penalty until this point.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "With the top three positions settled, attention switched to Barrichello, who had caught Blundell and was faster than the McLaren driver." "Caught" is jargon. I'm not sure about having the positions "settled" but I'm not that bothered by it.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Barrichello crashed out, but Blundell was able to continue, albeit with a punctured left-rear tyre which allowed Panis to overtake him on the last lap." Albeit is unnecessary.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Panis finished fourth, ahead of Blundell, who managed to limp home despite his car running on three wheels for the final lap." "Limp home" is jargon (although quite appropriate!) and could be simplified to "finish".
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "forty seconds ahead of a close group combining Martini, Salo and Boullion". Not sure combining is the right word. Including? Incorporating?
  • Comprising! ;) Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Post race

• "Herbert's maiden Formula One victory was very popular": with who? If this is a quote, it needs referencing. Also, "not only was it his home race, but because..." does not make sense. The comma after popular does not work with "not only was it..." A colon or semi-colon is more appropriate.
  • Done. The popularity of Herbert's win is covered by reference [45], which is a contemporary magazine article that focussed solely on Herbert's win and his career thus far as an extension of the standard race report, at the end of the (long) sentence.--Midgrid(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• "his wife, Becky; Peter Collins, of whom Herbert said that "he got me into F1 twice"; and Benetton team principal Flavio Briatore for giving him his 1995 drive": There should be a ref immediately after quote.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "After the crash, Schumacher firmly blamed Hill." Not sure that "firmly" is the right word, nor that it is necessary. "Blamed" would work just as well.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 21:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The general consensus was that Hill's lunge up the inside had been over-optimistic.": Who? There are 3 refs after this: does one of them say "consensus" or is it a conclusion from reading the references?
  • Alan Henry [39]: "At worst, Hill could have been accused of a momentary touch of over-optimistic exuberance", "Although Hill could be accused of being extremely over-ambitious of the situation, the stewards' decision indicated their belief that Schumacher deserved some of the blame." (There are similar sentiments elsewhere in the AUTOCOURSE annual.)
  • Nigel Roebuck [47]: "I cannot but conclude that Damon's attempted pass was other than extremely optimistic".
  • Luc Domenjoz [48]: "But Hill's desperate need to win at all costs caused a collision".
  • Jonathan Palmer [50], quoted in the following sentence.
  • Joe Saward's article [51] is the only source I have ever come across which apportions more of the blame to Schumacher than Hill.--Midgrid(talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The only problem with this is that there could be other things written which say something different. It also seems that you are drawing your own conclusions from what you have read. I think you either need to attribute views to these people you mention here (i.e. Some people such as X, Y and Z, believed that...) or reference a source which says that "the consensus was..." I know it seems fussy, but it's possible to get into big arguments here about this sort of thing! It also may be an issue if you go for FAC (not that I know anything about how that works.)--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The collision overshadowed the fact that Benetton had again chosen a better race strategy than Williams, and that Schumacher would have had a comfortable lead had he not been stuck behind Alesi in the early stages of the race.": Whose opinion is this? Is it a quote?
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• "In the week following the race, it was reported in several British newspapers that Frank Williams...": Is it possible to say which papers?
  • Unfortunately, they are not specified.--Midgrid(talk) 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The 1995 British Grand Prix was one of several confrontations between Hill and Schumacher during their Formula One careers." This is weak. What other confrontations? Could it be put into more context or is it better left out?
  • I've removed it, as the two drivers' previous disputes (1994 Australian Grand Prix and 1995 French Grand Prix) are already mentioned.--Midgrid(talk) 16:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

General All the references and citations seem fine, it is neutral and the article is stable, and the images are good. As mentioned, I am not sure about the length of the some of the sections, which seem too detailed, but that would be no impediment to passing the article. It has excellent information, and for the most part reads very well (the race section is not quite as clear or easy to read). If the above points are addressed, I am happy to pass it, but I do feel the points are important to clear up matters for the general reader with no background knowledge.

I apologise if I seem overly pedantic!--Sarastro1 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is a big space after the first paragraph: would it be possible to remove this? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't see a space (I'm using Wikipedia in Beta mode and have Chrome as the browser), but I've moved the image of Papis down a paragraph. Does this have any effect?--Midgrid(talk) 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It's fine now on my browser.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note 51 has a link to a disambiguation page. Does each reference need to link to the page of Joe Saward?
  • Done. He's not the only one: Alan Henry, Nigel Roebuck, Autosport, Autocourse and Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile are all linked to multiple times as well. I think it is suitable because of the large number of references and the spacing between references from the same author (e.g. Henry is the author of reference [2] and [58], so it's convenient to have links for all of them).--Midgrid(talk) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If you prefer that, fine with me.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Registration is required for some of your autosport.com links (again in the references). Does this need pointing out somewhere in the references section?
  • Template:Citation doesn't mention needing to specify if a subscription is required, just that linking to a free version is preferable (which doesn't exist AFAIK). I can't find anything in the Wikipedia:Citing sources page, either.--Midgrid(talk) 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• All other links OK and have checked all the references that I could and they are all fine.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note 24 (follows "spectator numbers were estimated at 40,000"): is the reference in the right place: should it come after the bracket or after the comma? I'm not too sure about that one.
  • According to Wikipedia:Footnotes, the Chicago Manual of Style advises putting footnotes after punctuation, so I've moved it accordingly.--Midgrid(talk) 16:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As there are a few things to tidy up, I will place the article on hold for the moment. However, it should be easy to sort out.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review! I'm currently addressing suggestions at a peer review of 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, but I'll start going through your points shortly.--Midgrid(talk) 17:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Very nearly there, and I will definitely pass this once the last couple of things are sorted out.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Final Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Everything seems fine to me now. Excellent article. Well done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)