Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Canadian Grand Prix/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

2007 Canadian Grand Prix edit

previous FAC

Re-nominating. Have fixed the minor issues raised. Buc 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where is it cited that four safety cars is 'unprecedented'? I browsed through some of the refs but couldn't find one. --Golbez 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Buc 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The issues raised last time were not minor, they were major lack of coverage of a very dramatic race. Many safety cars occurred, many passes occurred and each time, the complexion of the race changed a lot. From reading the article one cannot understand how the race evolved from start to finish. One would have to think....how did the Super Aguri of Sato end up in front of Alonso

Done

and at one point was ahead of Raikkonen's Ferrari and lapping faster and passing people?

Done

How did Wurz and Kovalainen end up in front of much faster Ferrari and McLaren. A person who did not watch the race on TV or video would not understand how the result came to be. It was a very complicated race and the race report would need to be at least three times longer to be understandable in terms of what happened. There were also some incidents in the later part of the race where Trulli and Liuzzi

Already mentioned Buc 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

crashed and Alonso went grasscutting and landmowing while trying to pass Webber? and then falling back again.

The one on lap 1? Buc 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess not - wasn't that much later in the race? 4u1e 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rember that at all. Buc 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he went off at the first corner three times during the race, so I guess it was one of those. 4u1e 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

According to one/6738963.stm this BBC timeline, Alonso went off at the first corner on laps 1, 14 and 18. The article only says that he went 'ran wide' on lap 1, which is a bit of an understatement, he ran right off the track, and that he 'made mistakes' on laps 14 and 18 - again he went right off track. I don't know if that's what Blnguyen was referring to, but it should certainly be described rather more precisely than in the current version of the article, as it is in these three race reports: Story.aspx?PO=39583 www.itv-f1.com, one/6738963.stm www.bbc.co.uk and www.grandprix.com. 4u1e 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link I've added it in. Buc 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another grasscutting by Alonso after the final SC but the report doeen't include. Actually since so much happened, it doesn't include a lot of things in htis unusual case because so much happened. Does anyone have a video of the race around still. I presume that's how ppl wrote episode summaries of the those Simpsosn FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew about that so there isn't much I can do. Would need a ref anyway. Buc 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can't see why this was re-started. The previous FAC wasn't all that long or complicated, all that the re-nomination has achieved is to make me look in two places to see whether previously raised points have been addressed. <shrug> 4u1e 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e, it was 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix was restarted, not this FAC!! Davnel03 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - the previous FAC was a fail, then? My apologies, in that case. Cheers. 4u1e 08:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy with the writing yet. Samples:

"despite him reporting that the car was"—ungrammatical: "despite his report that the car was" or "despite his reporting that the car was".
MOS breach—spaced a.m., etc., which will then require a spaced en dash.
"with a position in-between the two Honda cars"—Remove the hyphen.
"Sixteenth", but "19th". Where is your numeral/spelling-out boundary? See MOS. Tony 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Oppose - Far from a professional standard of writing. Some examples from early in the article (there are more later on):

From the lead The race was filled with many incidents resulting in an unprecedented four safety car periods,[2] including the violent impact of Robert Kubica's BMW Sauber against a concrete retaining wall, that he escaped with a sprained ankle and concussion. - The race was filled with many incidents comes across as a bit of a weak sentence and I don't think the latter part (that he escaped with...) even makes sense.

Done

BMW Sauber were pleased with 5th place then 7th place from Nick Heidfeld—despite his report that the car was was "very difficult to drive", - I think this is trying to say he got 5th in the first session and 7th in the second but it could do with being made clearer. No idea what the purpose of the dash is though.

{{done}

Robert Kubicas car suffered a fuel leak- 'Possessive form of a singular noun' here so it should be Kubica's car.

Done

a failure continuing his run of form during this race weekend - This comes under the practice session so I'm guessing it means that it was a sign of things to come but it's worded terribly.

Done

In qualifying Hamilton took his first ever pole position as part of a McLaren one-two. It was his first pole position. Not necessary to use ever.

Done

Heidfeld had an improved drive to take third position He had an improved drive? Again this comes across as awkward and on the verge of not making sense. Heidfeld improved on his practice performance to take third position is clearer.

Done

In the qualifying the bit about DC's braking problem is half-mentioned in two paragraphs. Do it all together in one paragraph and explain it clearly.

Done

Takuma Sato, once again out-qualifying the two Honda cars and just missed out on the top ten, in front of Vitantonio Liuzzi. Tense and structure are wrong.

Done

Referencing is also badly done throughout. In one paragraph we have [10][11][12][10][12][12][10][11][14] scattered throughout. This is a lot of repetition so unless absolutely necessary to go at the end of the sentence move them to the end of the paragraph. Also check that if the job done by [11] for example is also covered by [10] and [12] then remove [11]. This is a problem right through the article and breaks up the readability of the prose.
- Is this part of FA criteria? Buc 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present this is definitely not an example of Wikipedia's best work. It just about scrapes past GA's "reasonably well written" criteria (although parts are close to not making sense) but is far from being featured yet. AlexJ 11:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this image. Is there a alternative to this image which is OK to use that are good against Wikipedia guidlines. Have you look on Flickr for an alternative to use? I also can't help but to strongly agree with AlexJ's comments. You should of gone to Peer review (a mistake I regret making when heading straight for FAC with Malaysia GP). Oh you did go to peer review - only problem is you failed to list it - that's why it got zero comments. The only comment was from me - and that stated that I had to list it because you never. Davnel03 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Fails 1a right from the off, the image status is still unclear, and it also needs a lot of work to comply with 4. The most difficult aspect that this article wll come up against is the stipulation that successful FA candidates are well written and are "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard". This is not. If I were to choose a word beginning with P, it would be "pedestrian". The prose is functional, at best, and more than occasionally slips into magazine-tone and jargon. Examples of the latter, such as "got off the grid ", are rife, and weasel words abound (e.g. how on Earth did "Possibly frustrated by dropping back to third" ever get through GA??

- What's wrong with it?
  - Have you read WP:WEASEL? Pyrope 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is "Possibly" a WW? Buc 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is, and moreover it is speculation and unsubstantiated. If you can find a source that directly links the two events in this way then us a citation, if you can't then try rephrasing it to intimate a link, without directly doing so. Pyrope 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA is supposed to showcase the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer, it is not a cub scout badge that you gain by ticking a few boxes.
- Never said it was. Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you have treated it as such ever since this FAC process started. Most times, when a problem has been raised, instead of discussing how it might be made better you have simply come back with a fatuous green tick and the word "done". You are actually ticking things! I have deliberately made my comments abstract, rather than specific, as I believe that this article's failings are intrinsic and deep-rooted, and probably require that the article is rewritten in a more lively an engaging style. Pyrope 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But users were pionting out problems and the problems have been fixed. What eles am I supposed to do? It's not unusual to see this on FAC pages. I never said that by doing that the article would pass. Raul is looking for Support not stuff being done. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know, unfortunately. It would be far better to leave a comment outlining what you have changed, maybe providing a link to the differences, and then let the reviewing editor decide whether or not you have altered it to their satisfaction. Then they can chose whether or not to change their opinion. By adding giant ticks and bold Done you are effectively trying to bully the decision out of them. If they don't drop back to see for themselves, then a polite request on their talk page is usually all it takes. Pyrope 21:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should be inspirational, engaging, entertaining, informative and, crucially, exceptional examples of Wikipedia. That certain, probably indefinable, "something", this article currently lacks. Pyrope 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you have any specific to piont out so I can change it? Buc 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - FA is not peer review. Am I supposed to rewrite the whole article to demonstrate my point? Besides this probably being beyond my ability,
    - Are you saying the article would have to be entirely re-written to become a FA? Buc 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not neccessarily, this article is far closer to the right approach than the Malaysian GP one is. As I said, at present it lacks the sparkle of an excellent race report, particulary one blessed with so much potential content. Pyrope 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have already given you plenty of examples of how this article fails. I have read plenty of very high-quality, professional motorsport journalism and historical writing in my time, and this just doesn't get close. Frankly, for such a dramatic and eventful race, it's dull. p.s. And my concern about point 4? This article gives far too much space to utterly inconsequential, and unrelated, "Pre-race" cruft. For ****'s sake, testing and practice are just that, they are not a competition and very often bear very little relationship to what happens during a race. It is not even a requirement that a car is legal during a test! This section could be reduced to a single sentence: "A test session was held on May 17 and May 18 at the Paul Ricard circuit, with the track set up to replicate the conditions of the Canadian Grand Prix, where Ferrari dominated", period. Then you have to say why this is significant with respect to the race. Is it? Really? Considering that Ferrari were then rubbish throughout the race weekend I don't think it bears any relation at all, unless you want to make an allusion to the fact that their testing pace flattered to deceive. The aricle relates to a race, and should focus on the race and affairs that directly influenced the outcome of that race. If you want to write about test sessions then do so at the generic 2007 Formula One season page, do not clutter a race report with meaningless testing times (to three decimal places!!!). Similar comments stand for the "Practice" section. Pyrope 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gave it a PR. No one replied. But something alone the lines of what you gave in the 2007 Malaysian GP PR would be great. Buc 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sometimes people just don't see a request, and sometimes a request just doesn't excite people enough that they want to spend an hour or more (which is what it takes to properly peer review an article) on that one article. I'm afraid that I fall into the second category, and a race report has to cover a particularly interesting race (which, ironically, this one does!) for it to pique my interest. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many of the comments that I made for Malaysia stand for this article, with the proviso that this particular race is blessed with a fascinating and dramatic sequence of events, so FA might actually be worth working toward! Concentrate your efforts on drawing out the significant events, and tone down the minutiae of the midfield reshuffling. Pyrope 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks I hope you can comment when I give this another PR. I will address what you have said when I can find the time. Buc 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.