Open main menu
2013 24 Hours of Le Mans has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2019Good article nomineeListed
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 24, 2013.

GreenGT H2 - no entry in Silverstone 2012

Contents

Porsche LMP1 carEdit

According to this source, it states that a Porsche works car is planned for rollout in "mid-2013", and that they plan on running it at the 24 Hours of Le Mans and World Endurance Championship.

I read the source 20 times to make sure I read it right, but apparently I'm wrong. Could I have some clarification?

Thank you Gojet-64 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Porsche is entering in 2014. The car will be debuting for testing mid-2013, as has been known since June 2011. The359 (Talk) 07:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Designation of the factory Porsches in GTE-ProEdit

The press releases about the 2013 racing program with Porsche and Manthey all referred to the car as the "991 RSR", not the "991 GT3-RSR". The 991 GT3 doesn't exist on the roads yet, so the GTE car cannot be homologated based on it, therefore it had to be homologated off a standard 991, therefore the 991 RSR. Just look at any article about the program which picks up a Porsche press release, they ALL refer to the car simply as the "991 RSR". Vikirad (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Porsche Press Release referring to the "Porsche 911 GT3 RSR (Type 991)". Further, the 991 GT3 Cup already exists despite there being no 991 GT3 road car. Not that this stopped the Viper GTS-R from competing last year despite sales only starting after their debut. The359 (Talk) 10:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Press release dated to October last year. I haven't seen any press releases since then referring to the car as a 991 GT3-RSR. Another article taking a Porsche press release, far more recent (dated Feb 1 2013), and the quote from the head of Porsche Motorsport (Hartmut Kristen) refers to the car specifically as a "991 RSR". Vikirad (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a single Porsche press release. Of course every news site is going to have the exact same press release. That's the point of a press release, they make a statement and every news site copies it. There is nothing definitive on the name until the car is launched. The "there is no 991 GT3 road car yet" is a poor guess. The359 (Talk) 11:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant 991 GT3 RS road car, the RS was the homologation model for the 997. That one definitely doesn't exist yet. Vikirad (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, doesn't have to exist yet, not that they would need the GT3 RS to be the required homologation model. The359 (Talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Homologation rules specify that for a manufacturer like Porsche, at least 200 examples of the homologation model have to be produced over a year before the car gets the all-clear, otherwise the homologation is either withdrawn (at the end of the car's lifetime) or not accepted (at the start of the car's lifetime). And since no such number of 991 GT3 or 991 GT3 RS models have been produced so far, it can only result that the homologation is based on the regular 991. Vikirad (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
GTE rules also state an engine limit of 5.5 liters. Viper has 8.0. How is it homologated? Waivers. Not the first time Porsche or any other manufacturer has built a race car based on a yet to be released production car. Unless you can show that the car is homologated on the base 991, you're guessing. The359 (Talk) 20:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Well now we have an official resolution to this, the car has been launched officially at the Paul Ricard WEC test and the press release refers to it simply as a RSR, not a GT3 RSR. Vikirad (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

New race cars introduced in 2013Edit

Would it be ok if I add a little chapter about new race cars that appeared at Le Mans for the first time? Many readers are keen on finding this info quickly. Example: Porsche 991 GT3 RSR was introduced in 2013... many others too. Thanks for your reply and support. --Indianapolis74 (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Almost all cars at Le Mans are "new". Rarely do you see the same car in consecutive races. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is the model (type) of a car, e.g. Porsche 996 GT3 RSR (started 2004 for the first time at Le Mans), then Porsche 997 GT3 RSR (first Le Mans race in 2007) and Porsche 991 GT3 RSR (first time 2013). This is the official model evolution by Porsche, even Porsche would not say that the years inbetween they would have brought A NEW CAR to Le Mans, it was just a bit of improvement within the same type... Why should not this be valueable for the article? I have three encyclopedias about LE MANS and all feature a list of "cars that raced at Le Mans", and there they have these cars mentioned too, so why don't you recognize it as a real value? --Indianapolis74 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth a brief mention in the entry list chapter any major teams debuting new cars at this event (as opposed to previous events of the 2013 Endurance Championship). Bearing in mind that while Le Mans is the biggest sports car race of the year, it is also interconnected with a myriad of other racing events.
Detailing of the technical specifications of the cars does however belong in the articles about the cars themselves. --Falcadore (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
+1, no extra chapter needed, it's ok to have this important info in the entry list chapter! --Indianapolis74 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
If the information can be worked into prose as relevent to the overall subject, then there is no problem. This is grossly different from simply listing every car you think is "important info". Further, as Falcadore stated, it should really only be for cars debuting at Le Mans. The 991 RSR did not debut at Le Mans. The359 (Talk) 07:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with The359. The 991s debut should be highlighted when it occurred, rather than at its first Le Mans. By the time it has reached Le Mans it is already a battle-tested piece of hardware rather than something new and its Le Mans debut is no longer that significant. It should be borne in mind Wikipedia is not a Le Mans encyclopedia but a general purpose encyclopedia.
Previous Le Mans might have highlighted the debut of the DeltaWing at Le Mans, but there was the debut of a whole new class - the 55th entry for cars which push technological boundaries. The car was not new, but its class was. --Falcadore (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Matteo MalucelliEdit

Please check the "famous driver" wikilink: it links to an italian cyclist! MC12GT1 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done Link removed. Next time, you can remove the link yourself if you feel it is a mistake. The359 (Talk) 00:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 24 Hours of Le Mans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 08:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


So I will be happy to review this article as on first inspections it's look like it will be suitable for the good article. Of course you don't quite know if that is the case.

LeadEdit

  • ...by the No. 42 Greaves Motorsport Zytek Z11SN driven by... - Is their meant to be a comma between the two wiki-linked pages here.
  • ...championship leaders going into the race Lotterer, Fässler and Tréluyer... - I think their is meant to be a comma between race and Lotterer.

BackgroundEdit

  • This is fine, no problems with this

Balance of Performance changesEdit

EntriesEdit

  • ...between the LMP1, and LMP2... - Remove the "and" before LMP2.
  • I know this isn't really a part of it, but JMW Motorsport is red-linked so you could either create a article or remove the wiki links for it. This is the same with most of the other red-link pages that is in this article.

Testing and practiceEdit

  • The LMGTE Pro class lead constantly changed with... - Was it between those two cars that followed through in this sentence or was their more cars involved in the changing of the lead.
  • Just a thought, is their any other related sources that suited for this practice session instead of using the same reference five times. Of course you don't have to follow it up as their is no issues with this.

QualifyingEdit

  • ...final seconds of third qualifying... - We already know that this is the third session because of it being earlier in the paragraph.
  • ...making the top three in LMP2 to be represented by three manufacturers... - I know what I am thinking but this could be better worded in a way so that it slightly flow better.

RaceEdit

Warm-upEdit

  • The first half of this paragraph you haven't really been adding the references for the different classes.
  • Several drivers went off the track during the session which had three crashes. - Says several drivers but looking on their seems to be only three drivers that was mention in this.

StartEdit

  • ...for second at the second Mulsanne chicane... - Missing the word place after second.
  • ...Audi duo of McNish of di Grassi within half... - Change of to and here.
  • ...in the first three overall... - Change first to top.

NightEdit

Seems fine here

Morning to early afternoonEdit

  • ...lowered it by six seconds by... - Change by to to.

FinishEdit

Seems fine here

Post-raceEdit

No issues here.

Standings after the raceEdit

  • No issues

FootnotesEdit

  • No issues

ReferencesEdit

  • No issues on the references side as a check in the links. If I had to nitpick here, reference 16 and 18 has some un-categorised redirects

Final commentsEdit

So just final touch ups and I think this is good enough to go for a good article. HawkAussie (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

    • @HawkAussie: Many thanks for reviewing the article. All of the points raised above have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@MWright96: Good job as that is another one to add to the Good Article bank. HawkAussie (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2013 24 Hours of Le Mans" page.