Talk:2018 German Grand Prix

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 German Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Will review shortly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for the long delay. I have read through the article, and before I even get into the fine details, let me lay out my main problem with the article: The prose reads more like a news article than an encyclopedic one. Especially the qualifying section is full of overlong passages that read like "Then this happened, then this happened". There is no reason why we have to know which driver crossed the line when. The article appears to attempt to recreate excitement and suspense, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. I feel that the entire report needs to be rewritten to get those passages out. Also, there are sentences like

• "However it was probable that Räikkönen would let his teammate, Vettel, by as Vettel was fighting for the championship but Räikkönen was not and because Vettel was the quicker car at that time." - That falls clearly under WP:CRYSTAL since it is purely speculative.
• "This early pitstop implied that he is on a two stop strategy." Again, crystal ball.
• "On lap 51 Bottas overtook Räikkönen at turn 12 for second place after Sergio Pérez (one lap down) ran wide at turn 8, afterwards Räikkönen complained on the radio that Pérez had ignored blue flags and blocked him, although Pérez didn't break any of the rules." - Apart from the fact that all abbreviations need to be taken out of this article, I do not understand why this information is added. If he did not break any rules, then it is completely inconsequential.

This unfortunately really needs a lot of work in order to qualify for GA. If it is possible to rewrite the article in an acceptable amount of time, I will go through it again as soon as possible. Feel free to send me any questions you might have. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase:, I've gone through the report sections and trimmed/copyedited it down. Can you tak another look please.
SSSB (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: Thanks for the changes. I didn't have the chance to get through everything yet, but will do tomorrow or on Monday. Some thoughts now:

• The wet weather tyres need a source.
• Try to go over the text again for every bit that is phrased in a speculative way ("It was thought that..." etc.)
• "As a result of the safety car Valtteri Bottas made a pitstop on lap 53" - This sentence needs to be rephrased, since it sounds like Bottas was forced to pit by the safety car, even though Mercedes simply pitted him because it was beneficial. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey SSSB! Sorry for the long delay, I must admit, I completely forgot about this review... I see that some of what I mentioned above is still open. Also, I am still not convinced about the prose, since a lot of it still has a very color-commentator feel to it, with a lot of fill words and unnecessary details. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: no problem. I've just cut down the reports but if you still think its too comentry like your going to have to start being more specific about which parts you are unhappy with.
SSSB (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry again for the long delay! I have rephrased the part about Q1 to illustrate what I mean. You use the BBC's live ticker as your main source which leads to the problem that the prose reads like a play-by-play commentary. Since this is an encyclopedia, the prose should rather be written in hindsight. We know what happened, you don't have to build suspense. Also, phrases like "biggest shock" and "uneventfully" etc. are WP:EDITORIALIZING, so a big no-go, and have to be taken out completely. I would suggest the following: Go over the report sections of the article again, use report articles online rather than the live tickers as your source and rewrite those parts accordingly. Then, I see no reason why this should not become a Good Article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

As a lot of qualifying reports do not have a lot of information about the earlier two parts, I suggest using this source for more on Q1 and Q2, if you want to flesh out those parts some more. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid I will have to close this nomination for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)