Talk:Richard Lloyd Racing

GA Review

I have only made it up to the end of the 1983-1985 section so far, but I figured there is no harm in letting you know what I've found so far. The article is looking good and is well-written. A few concerns that I wanted to mention are:

1. Y Wiki linked In the first paragraph, the word "privateer" is confusing. Is this jargon that I should know?
2. In the second paragraph of the lead, "forward-thinking" sounds point of view. Is there a more neutral way to say this ("innovative"?)?

 Done Changed to innovative, was what I was trying to imply.

1. In the second, third and fourth sentences of the lead, "the team" is used in consecutive sentences. Breaking this up would make the article read better.

 Done Changed the latter two.

1. Abbreviations like BSCC and GTO should be spelled out the first time they are used (eg. "British Saloon Car Championship (BSCC)"). I don't think this applies to car types, though.

 Done I assume you wanted this done in the lead, so I put them there.

1. In the second paragraph of the 1977-1980 section, you say that the 1980 season was "successful", but this sounds like point of view without any results given.

 Done Removed successful.

1. In the second paragraph of the 1981-1982 section, the final clause is a little confusing. I take it you are saying that the team outlasted several Group C and Group 6 sports-prototypes?

 Done Yes. I've fiddled with it a bit to try and make it clearer.

1. At the beginning of the 1983-1985 section, you shouldn't start a sentence with a date. Is there a good way to rephrase the beginning of the sentence. Even something like "The following year brought..." would work.

 Done Fixed this here, and in later sections where I started with the year.

1. In some places near the beginning of the Racing history section, the article seems a little thin on results. For example, the 1977-1980 section doesn't give much information about how things went in the races themselves.

I unfortunately have yet to find an archive of full results for the team during their years in BSCC. I had asked for aid from Wikipedia:WikiProject British Motorsport, which covers the BSCC, but I'm not sure if they have anything that can be added. Their number of victories and championship positions and such merely comes from what sources I have.

If you have a chance to work on these now, feel free to do so. If not, they will be included in my comments when I post the GA review. If you do have a chance to fix any of these before then, please make a note of it by striking it out or adding a "done" check. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much for the review, I'll try and make any fixes necessary quickly. The359 (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed my review. I fixed a few minor things, but I have a couple of things that I would like to see fixed before passing the article. At present, my review is as follows:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is very close to passing. However, there are a few things I would like to see changed before listing it as a Good Article. As for the 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, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have two remaining concerns, which I have listed below. I will place this review on hold for seven days. Please address my concerns below over the next seven days. Notify me on my talk page if you are ready for reevaluation earlier.

There are a few places where I think more references are needed. These are:

1. The first sentence of the 1986-1990 section (Canon's decision to stop sponsorship).
2. The third sentence of the 1986-1990 section (Liqui Moly's decision to stop sponsorship).
3. The fourth sentence of the 1986-1990 section (Italiya's decision to sponsor the team).
4. The end of the first paragraph in the 962C GTi section (I don't usually like to see paragraphs end with a reference).
5. The third paragraph in the 962C GTi section.
6. The end of the fourth paragraph in the 962C GTi section.

Aside from that, the only other concern I have is that italics appear to be used inconsistently. The two places where I think this is an issue are:

1. The second sentence of the 1986-1990 section.
2. The final sentence of the 956 GTi section.

I decided to mention these instead of changing them myself in case there is a reason for them being italicized. If there is, I have no problem with keeping them as they are.

I've made some changes, but am unsure about how to make a few others. The three sections regarding the change of sponsorship have no written sources, but photographs of the cars from various events, as well as entry lists do denote that the team changed sponsorship and paint schemes prior to the 1986 season (Canon to Liqui Moly), then again in 1988 (Liqui Moly to Porsche Great Britain), and finally 1990 (Porsche Great Britain to Italiya Sport). I'm not exactly sure how to reference these changes which are, at least to me, able to be evidenced.

The same somewhat applies to the third paragraph of the 962C GTi section. As before, there is photographic evidence of the physical changes (1989 versus 1990). Again, not exactly sure how to cite that there are difference between the cars in these two years (removal of rear wheel covers, moving the two small ducts in the nose).

The other ones you pointed out I attempted to add more references to. Suggestions welcomed. The359 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done a really good job with this article, and I appreciate your quickness in addressing my previous concerns. This is only the second GA review I have performed, so please let me know if you disagree with any of my suggestions or if you have any feedback about the review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you've referenced everything for which references exist and can show evidence of the rest, the article can be considered fully referenced and free of original reearch. Everything has been completed, so I have passed the article. Good job! GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Random thought

I can't shake off a vague recollection that it was RLR that ran the Audi coupé at Le Mans a few years back (i.e. the backup to the works Audi open top R8s). That sort of fits with RLR's history, but not with the fact that the team shut down. This sort of backs up my point. Does this make any sense? 4u1e (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Same founder, different team. Richard Lloyd founded Audi Sport UK to run in the BTCC several years after he had been running solo in Porsche cups after RLR closed down. The team is now Apex Motorsport, and their website lists the team history as only going back to 1995. I'd treat them as seperate entities since, besides Richard Lloyd as founder, they seem to have different personnel and are in different locations (RLR in Silverstone, Apex a bit away in Buckingham). The359 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I was probably connecting the project with Richard Lloyd, not Richard Lloyd Racing. Ta. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's had his hands in several things. Also had a team prior to GTi Engineering that is similarly a separate entity. The359 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)