Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Brabham/archive1

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Brabham edit

Notified: 4u1e, DH85868993, Pyrope, WP Motorsport, WP Formula One, WP Australia, WP Automobiles, talk notifications 2021-01-18 2021-10-31

Review section edit

As mentioned in the talk page notification that is almost a year old, this 2006 Featured article has considerable uncited text, appears not to have been updated since 2010, and there are many statements that do not have as of dates or time context, yet use older sources. Z1720 points out "there is no post-2015 information in the history section. I am also concerned about WP:OVERSECTION in the Racing History - other section". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another point for consideration: the section "Brabham Racing (2014–)" is nonsense, based solely on an old announcement. Announcements in themselves are not notable, the actual event is. Since it didn't come to fruition, this entire section is fluff and should be removed. IMO the lead should even revert to the past tense (Brabham was...) since there is little to suggest that this currently is an active organization. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The story of this organisation essentially ends in 1992. Anything after that is probably irrelevant, perhaps beyond a few notes about what any individuals who were involved with Brabham went on to do after that time. I don't think it matters if this article relies on older sources (provided they are reliable), as there is very little to say about the team after 1992. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the article is called Brabham, not Motor Racing Developments. The later use of the name Brabham is relevant, but I agree the structure needs to be reconsidered. I would move the post-1992 events to a new section like "Revival attempts". 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a section called "Revival attempts" might be more suitable, but it needs to be concrete. The 2014 speculative announcement by a stakeholder is nothing more than marketing buzz (unfortunately this is a problem across WP – many editors fall for this, quickly adding such fluff because it is repeated over and over in the media). WP:CRYSTAL says: "take special care to avoid advertising", "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is ... almost certain to take place", and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product (or business) announcements". Since no actual revival has taken place, the lead should be in the past tense. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brabham Racing is actually active in European GT racing with the BT62 and BT63, so in this case it's not a matter of marketing fluff but just out-of-date. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention of the fact that Jack Brabham's son has run a similarly named team could be warranted if suitable sourcing was available. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a go, listing the team's plans and its entries briefly. Sourcing could do with a bit of work if it was in a standalone article but I think it's enough to confirm that the name has been used by successor organisations. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why “Brabham” is used as the article title is WP:COMMON. The lead and the infobox however make it clear that the article does deal with Motor Racing Developments specifically.Tvx1 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, using the common name invites coverage of how that common name has later been used. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much ... but I have unstruck your strike of my comment, as the reviewer who enters the comment strikes it once they've revisited. I'll check that over mañana and strike if all is done; pooped out for the day now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have any of the book sources? It appears as if citations are put at the end of paras where not everything in the para is in the source. I (temporarily) altered some paras as indications, but this makes me worry about original research relative to book sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanBodyPiloter5, Tvx1, and 5225C: I have resolved the image issues, but there are sourcing matters that need to be looked at (does anyone have the books)? And overlinking needs to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having looked over the article I can't really see the issues this article has getting resolved unless someone has access to the books. Sadly I don't think this article is going to be able to be kept at a featured level without that. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this article is unlikely to maintain featured status unless someone has the books. At this point, it is unclear which parts of any of the paragraphs can be sourced to the books cited. We should probably be proceeding to the FARC stage here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any of the books already cited, but I do have a copy of the more recent Brabham (Tony Davis, Ákos Armont) which should be able to verify some details. I don't have the time to sift through the article but if you tag passages of concern I'm happy to check if they're in it. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, being in Australia I'm happy to check the libraries for copies if necessary, but I think it's worth giving it a shot with alternative sources. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a mixed citation style (some parenthetical, now deprecated) and others using ref tags, and some of the parentheticals are not listed as sources. I cannot decipher from which source this comes, so an “as of” date can be added, or the reader can check whether it is still true. And the prose is repetitive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brabham became the first man to win a Formula One world championship race in a car bearing his own name. Only his former teammate, Bruce McLaren, has since matched the achievement. It was the first in a run of four straight wins for the Australian veteran. Brabham won his third title in 1966, becoming the only driver to win the Formula One World Championship in a car carrying his own name (cf Surtees, Hill and Fittipaldi Automotive).
    I think I am misreading the citation style; some of the names in parens may actually be racers ... not parenthetical citations ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middlebridge needs a link, even if WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5225C what makes this a reliable source, and what makes it high enough quality for a Featured article? Add which parts of that para is it citing? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just copied it from Amati's article since it apparently sourced that claim (3 DNQs). Replaced with another Motor Sport source. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured articles require higher quality sources. The article was originally written to some books that we should be using. We have to take care not to source the article to mirrors that wrote their content after this article was written in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there's also a problem with the second source in that diff. This article was featured in 2006, and that article was written in 2017. Is it a high quality source? What part of the para is it verifying? How do we know it's not mirroring Wikipedia? We should be checking the original books used rather than retrofitting lower quality sources to a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motor Sport is the definition of a high quality motorsports source. If you would like to challenge one of the best-established and well-respected publications in motorsport then I'm going to have to ask for some more detailed reasoning. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concur there. Motor Sport magazine is a highly-respected outlet that's been running for nearly a century. It's highly unlikely that they would just copy stuff from Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, lost my battery midway on that one. OK, that source is citing one minor part of the para; so good. The earlier source is not the kind we should be adding to FAs (but I gather it is gone now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, that was a careless mistake on my part. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob; can we slow down and locate the books? My concerns are beyond individual sentences here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I'll put a breakdown of them below. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow ... so, seeing that many that may be hard to find, do you believe we should keep this FAR open? Or should we proceed to FARC? What's the prognosis ? Are you willing to undertake source checking? Either way, the article is already considerably improved ... regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm optimistic, I think we have access to the major sources through Archive.org and the ones we can't get are more minor sources that we should be able to replace. We don't have a deadline and I am happy to try and fix the article's sourcing issues. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so if you are going for it, that would mean hold in FAR, work ongoing (the Coords need to know as we are approaching the two-week mark for the FAR phase). Thanks for taking this on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5225C, we're going backwards here. If you remove a cn tag from an entire paragraph, while adding a source that only cites one sentence, we're going to end up worse off than we were before we started, because we won't know what is cited and what is not. You've done that twice. This source, for example, does not mention the Argentine. What are you citing with the second citation? Instead of removing a cn tag, you should be moving it so we know what still remains to be cited. Since most of it theoretically came from the books originally cited, might it not be better to locate them before retrofitting partial citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I work on a claim-by-claim basis when sourcing, which after all is how this is meant to be done. When I see a cn tag, I source the claim that has been tagged. If you would like me to find sources, which I am willing and eager to do, then I ask you be more specific with what you want sourced. If you intend to use in-line clean-up tags, then you need to use them to indicate claims in line. Otherwise you should be using clean-up banners. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, I separated entire paragraphs that were unsourced. When you remove a cn from an entire uncited paragraph, and cite only the last sentence in that paragraph, we are left with the impression that the citation applies to the entire sentence. Did you see my post on this page at 22:03 describing the problem ? A cn at the end of an uncited paragraph means the entire para is uncited. If you remove it, cite the entire para. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brabham source accessibility
Source Access level
Bamsey, Ian; Benzing, Enrico; Staniforth, Allan; Lawrence, Mike (1988). The 1000 BHP Grand Prix cars. G T Foulis & Co Ltd. ISBN 0-85429-617-4. Need to find a copy
Brabham, Jack; Nye, Doug (2004), The Jack Brabham Story, Motorbooks International, ISBN 0-7603-1590-6 Copy in the WA State Library
Collings, Timothy (2004). The Piranha Club. Virgin Books. ISBN 0-7535-0965-2. Archive.org
Drackett, Phil (1985). Brabham—Story of a racing team. Arthur Baker Ltd. ISBN 0-213-16915-0. Need to find a copy
Gill, Barrie, ed. (1976). The World Championship 1975 – John Player Motorsport yearbook 1976. Queen Anne Press Ltd. ISBN 0-362-00254-1. Need to find a copy
Hamilton, Maurice, ed. (1983). Autocourse 1983–1984. Hazleton Publishing. ISBN 0-905138-25-2. Need to find a copy
Henry, Alan (1985). Brabham, the Grand Prix Cars. Osprey. ISBN 0-905138-36-8. Need to find a copy
Hodges, David (1998). A-Z of Formula Racing Cars 1945–1990. Bay View books. ISBN 1-901432-17-3. Archive.org
Lawrence, Mike (1999). Brabham+Ralt+Honda: The Ron Tauranac story. Motor Racing Publications. ISBN 1-899870-35-0. Need to find a copy
Lovell, Terry (2004). Bernie's Game. Metro Books. ISBN 1-84358-086-1. Archive.org
Nye, Doug (1986). Autocourse history of the Grand Prix car 1966–85. Hazleton publishing. ISBN 0-905138-37-6. Copy in the WA State Library
Roebuck, Nigel (1986). Grand Prix Greats. Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 0-85059-792-7. Archive.org
Tremayne, David; Hughes, Mark (2001) [1998]. The Concise Encyclopedia of Formula One (updated ed.). Parragon. ISBN 0-7525-6735-7. Archive.org (2002 and 2000, not 2001 edition)
Unique, (Various). Brabham – the man and the machines. Unique Motor Books. ISBN 1-84155-619-X. Need to find a copy

As you can see from my table, a handful of the books we're looking for can be found online at Archive.org, and a few are in the WA State Library system. How accessible they are I don't know, but they're on the catalogue. Many aren't accessible, but given a few have been discussed online (e.g. the John Player yearbook) I might be able to convince someone to send me a scanned copy. Some might be entirely out of reach unless we find someone with a copy, either through WP:F1 or WP:RX. Still, I hold hope that they can be replaced. Brabham was/is not a small or obscure subject, there are many reputable publications and if we can't use these sources there's nothing stopping us from finding alternatives that are more accessible. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5225C update? There have been no edits since 2 December; what are your thoughts on timing of being able to finish up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say I think it's quite unlikely I'll find the time for a project of this scale in the immediate future. Unless another editor is able to take it on, I don't think I'll be able to get it done in a timely manner, which is quite disappointing to me because I would like to see the article restored to full FA status. I suppose the only thing to do now is either find someone who does have the available time or to delist the article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, so sorry to hear that. Well, the upside is that you can take it to FAC yourself when you do find the time, and get a new bronze star. Thanks for the effort so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per 5225C feedback above (moving to FARC does not preclude further work happening in that phase). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - progress stalled out at the beginning of the month and the issues remain unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist progress has stalled, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Brabham/archive1&oldid=1064555535"