Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix/archive1

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

Article recently failed FA, see here. I have decided to take it to Peer review to see how I can improve the article ready to nominate for FA again after this Peer review has finished. I don't want a semi-automatic javascript AndyZ tool to look over this as I already have that installed in my monobook. Thank you, Davnel03 07:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the inital idea,[12] calling it a "pretty good solution." - I know the second good is a quote, but could the start of the sentence be reworded in order to convey the same meaning without using good twice in short succession.
  • Changed to "The overall reaction to this was well recieved...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • ...which is grammatical nonsense. Use Alex's suggested phrasing, below. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't find that phrase Alex mentioned. Davnel03 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The second of his two italicised paragraphs near the bottom. Pyrope 16:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Quoted straight from the second paragraph: The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the initial idea, calling it a "pretty good solution." And what change are you on about? If I'm right, the start is exactly the same as my first version. Davnel03 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
            • No, yours ran "The overall reaction to this was well recieved", Alex's is "The overall reaction to this was good". Your phrase mixes up object and subject of the sentence, Alex's is much more elegant. Pyrope 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Nope, the first one. It's directly under where I put my opening comment in this PR. Davnel03 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Yes, and you still run into the repetition of "good" problem, I wasn't commenting on that. But your phrase about the reaction being well received is lumpen. The reception of the idea was the reaction. A reaction can be positive, and idea can be well received, but a reaction cannot be received unless you are talking about a second reaction to the first reaction (and so we tie ourselves in knots...). It needs to be rewritten. Pyrope 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I can't think any other way on how to rewrite it; maybe "The change was successful, with......" and then go from there the same. Davnel03 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • Well I gave you a big hint! Try using Alex's construction, but replacing the first "good" with the word "positive". And buy a thesaurus... ;-) Pyrope 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • Hahaha, I'm only at secondary school, so my writing (for my age) is pretty good. Edit done. Davnel03 16:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • • FAC has no allowance for age. There isn't a "pretty good for a 12 year old" category. Get over yourself. Pyrope 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
                            • I'm not 12, I'm 15. Davnel03 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • Oh, I also suggest you take a look at 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, which is currently a FAC. One problem about the testing section in the Malaysian article is a major problem in the Canadian one...... Davnel03 16:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Hondas struggled again in Friday's second practice session. Barrichello called it "extremely frustrating". This is the first time 'Barrichello' is introduced to us, but no explanation of who (or what) he is. The reader might not know who RB is (the article may be read by a non-F1 fan, or even an F1 fan in 20 years time). The MOS says After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. which I take to mean that the person should be introduced the their full (common) name, i.e. Rubens Barrichello, and also it needs to be noted that he is a driver for the team.
  • Added "Rubens". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I question what this quote is telling us at all. Driver underperforms and isn't happy, big deal. This is a good example of the clutter which needs to be trimmed to help the article flow. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Removed. Davnel03 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it would be too 'bitty' if the Pre-Race section was split up into stuff that happened before the race weekend started under Pre-Race and then have the practice sessions under their own header. Suggest getting other opinions on that.
  • I might take that to WP:F1. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Be bold. I agree with Alex. Separate "background events" and "practice sessions" headings would help to differentiate the general from the specific. Whether you make these sub-sub-heads under a "Pre-race" subheading (which I don't like at all, it is far too jargony), or make them subheadings on their own, I think that this could improve the screed that exists under this heading at present. However, as I have commented previously, these sections should be pared down to a minimum, to set the scene for the subject of the article: the competitive sessions. Further, test sessions are not competitions. Tests and practice are just that, you don't know how much fuel is in the cars, you don't know if they are even running legal parts/weights/fuel. These sessions are, at very best, only indicative and running such a full breakdown (complete with timings to three decimals!!) is pointless and crufty. Some general comment, perhaps only one or two sentences, would be plenty. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't want to remove it because of this comment someone made during the original FAC. I've renamed the headers though. I'll rename them for all the rest of the 2007 race reports as well. Davnel03 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I wasn't suggesting that you remove it, just make it a more realistic size. And race commentators most certainly do not go into minute detail about who put what time in during practice/testing. They make generalised comments like "Ferrari dominated during mideweek testing at Jerez" (and often that is as much a they say), but they don't follow that with an in-depth breakdown of "positions" and times. They know that such a discourse would bore the trousers off their audience. The same applies here. Pyrope 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, I've heavily shortened the testing part. Davnel03 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Honda's poor form continued as Rubens Barrichello was knocked out in Q1, qualifying 19th.. Rubens second mention and he's being referred to by his full name. If he was introduced earlier, then he should now be just Barrichello.
  • Removed "Rubens". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• missed the cut with 17th spot, but team-mate Tonio Liuzzi made it through to Q2. Super Aguri's Anthony Davidson also failed to make the cut, - Again a bit repetitive using 'cut' twice.
  • Removed the second cut; changed to "Anthony Davidson also failed to make it through to Part Two," Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• caused all the drivers to post quick laps at the start of Qualifying 2, traditionally the slowest period. - Not sure I understand that bit about the slowest period. Both the part about tradition coming into it (the quali system is just over a season old by this race) and the slowest period. I'd say that the start of Q3 was the slowest period so I think sentence needs adjusting to explain clearly what is meant.
  • Removed last phrase. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, but is didn't "cause" them to post their fastest laps then. Nit-picking perhaps, but a threat cannot cause (an active process), it can influence or persuade (a passive process, the final decision is the drivers'). Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• but the Renaults were the shock as both Fisichella and Kovalainen were knocked out... - doesn't have an encyclopaedic tone to it.
  • Removed "were the shock as both Fisichella and Kovalainen". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• ...with Pat Symonds later stating that they "didn't maximise [their] chances" - and who's Pat Symonds? Is he one of their drivers too? I'd imagine that's what a reader would think.
  • Changed to "....with Pat Symonds, the teams Executive Director of Engineering, later...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My point would be, do we really care? Of course he said that, race personnel always claim they could have done better. The whole sentence adds nothing and is of very little significnce. Stay focussed. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Removed. I hope the things I'm changing don't come to backfire on me at FAC when I renominate straight after this PR is over. Davnel03 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • (dull knocking sound as Pyrope's head beats against the nearest wall) What is the obsession with FAC?? Go and read 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and then tell me that that this article gets even close... Featured articles are "our very best work and feature professional standards of writing and presentation". There are many exceptional pieces of work on this site, work that I am in awe of in many cases. One thing that they have in common is that they grow organically over many months, and have input from a large number of well-informed, skilled, articulate, dilligent authors. Would you please stop trying to promote your work in such a, frankly, tawdry way, by doing so you debase the hard work and achievement of many others. You can certainly aim for GA, maybe even A-class with time, but to suggest that these race reports are amongst the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer is absurd! I am perfectly willing to spend time helping you improve an article to good B-class, or eve GA if the race deserves it, but to spend so much time taking an inconsequential race to full FA status (I personally don't think that it is possible for such races) is pointless. Be satisfied with earning respect as an enthusiastic, helpful, informed and informative contributor to F1 topics, stop trying to boost your own ego by notching up undeserved FA articles. You will just get a reputation as a dilletante and glory-seeker, and nobody likes a show-off. Pyrope 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Couthard and Barrichello were deemed to have changed their engines before qualifying, resulting in both drivers being awarded a 10 place grid penalty. Closer examination, however, revealed that Coulthard changed his engine before the start of the race weekend, preventing his 10 place drop. - Probably needs to explain who 'deemed' DC and RB to have changed their engines, and also replace the closer examination bit with something else (subsequent investigation if that's what happened). Did DC/Red Bull appeal the orginal decision. Who decided DC hadn't changed the engine, Race Stewards?
  • Changed to "Couthard and Barrichello were deemed by the race stewards to have changed their engines before qualifying, resulting in both drivers being awarded a 10 place grid penalty. Subsequent investigations by the stewards, however, revealed that Coulthard changed his engine before the start of the race weekend, preventing his 10 place drop." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Do try and avoid the passive voice. Try "The race stewards initially imposed a 10 place penalty on Couthard and Barrichello, for changing their engines prior to qualification. However, after further investigation they rescinded Couthard's penalty, as his change had been made before the start of the race weekend." This also avoids the rather awkward "deemed" word, which often comes with an implication of arbitrary and unfair decision making, as well as avoiding the repetition of the penalty specifics. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed. Davnel03 16:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• In Qualifying 3, Massa snatched pole from Alonso in the dying seconds both snatched and dying don't seem the right tone to me. Also as it's the first mention, give the full name, 'pole position', and wikilink it.
  • Done. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, state the facts and don't get drawn into hyperbole. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Massa's pole marked Bridgestones 100th pole position in Formula One. Bridgestone need introducing as a tyre company, and a bit of a random place for a wikilink to F1.
  • Removed Formula One wikilink. Inserted the tyre company between Brigestones and 100th, with commas surrounding it. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Adrian Sutil's suspension failed at turn four, causing him to collide with Button and retire from the race, although Button was able to continue. - Comes across as awkward. Perhaps a bit more detail on Button (did he pit?) and this could be split into two sentences (and retire from the race. Button was able to continue after...)
  • I've split it. It's now: " Adrian Sutil's suspension failed at turn four, causing him to collide with Button and retire from the race. Button, after making an early pitstop to repair the damage, was able to continue. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this is part of the reason the prose is being commented by some as being 'choppy'. You've used Button, after making an early pitstop to repair the damage, was able to continue. The sentence is grammatically correct, but by wording it like that it's breaking the sentence up into two bits, one in the middle of the other, requiring two pauses when reading it and breaking up the flow. If you were to use After making an early pitstop to repair the damage, Button was able to continue the two bits of the sentence are now separate and (I feel) it reads better as a result. The pause seems much more natural this way appearing near the middle of the sentence. Probably worth looking through the rest of the article, and seeing where it sounds better without the mid-sentence pause. Remember that variety is good to keep the article interesting so don't remove all the "xx,x,xx" style sentences just ones where it improves by not having it. It's 'nitpicking' like this that help meet criteria 1a) of FAC. AlexJ 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed. Davnel03 11:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Just as a brief rule of thumb: if a sentence including subclauses loses its meaning when you remove a subcleause, it generally needs rephrasing. In this case if you remove "after making an early pitstop" from your sentence, you are left with "Button was able to continue", which says nothing. Notice how you can't do that to Alex's phrase. Definitely worth looking through the rest of the article. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, OK. If you notice something else like that in the article that hasn't been changed, point it out to me. Davnel03 16:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• After starting fifteenth, Button quickly found himself being overtaken for 17th - Choose one style for numbering.
  • Changed fifteenth to 15th. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Quick phrasing point: he wasn't "overtaken for 17th", he was "overtaken, and dropped to 17th". Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed. Davnel03 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Spyker team's weekend got worse as Christijan Albers retired on lap 9 with a gearbox fire. On lap 12, Robert Kubica was the first man to pit, however he reported traction control problems four laps later and dropped down the order. Button's weekend got worse... - repeating 'got worse' in short succession. Perhaps you could say "The Spyker team's other car driven by Christijan Albers retired on..." to avoid this. AlexJ 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to your version. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kubica dropped to thirteenth as his traction control problem got worse - Arrgh! It's 'got worse' again. Worsened this time maybe? Or perhaps reword the sentance to use a totally different phrase like "deteriorated further".
  • Changed to "deteriorated further". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A problem can't deteriorate. A situation (e.g. traction control fault) can deteriorate, but a problem worsens or increases. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Added the word fault. For some reason it was just traction control. The word problem was not there - I think I removed it in a previous edit. Ah well! Davnel03 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• and a train of cars developed behind him. - Common parlance in the world of F1 perhaps, but a little confusing to the regular reader.
  • Don't know how to reword that. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to a train of cars that wanted to pass developed behind him. Guroadrunner 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kovalainen's performance was much better than in Melbourne - Melbourne probably needs an introduction ("than at the previous round in Melbourne" perhaps) and I'd say that Kovalainen's improved performance probably could do with a citation to avoid it being perceived as POV.
  • Changed to " Kovalainen's performance was much better than at the previous round in Melbourne, and he...." I need to find a source to back it up, and as you stated it could be seen as POV at the moment. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nico Rosberg, running in 6th place, retired with hydrallic problems... - Spelling.
  • Changed. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• ...with thirteen laps to go[1] and was extremely frustrated afterwards.[31] - Citation 31 appears to cover both the frustration and the thirteen laps to go, so the ugly mid sentence cite is not needed.
  • Removed midsentence ref. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Heidfeld said later "this is a fantastic experience (to beat Massa)" - Could be reworded to avoid having to use the brackets-in-quote.
  • I have no idea on how to reword that. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to Heidfeld said later beating Massa was "a fantastic experience". Guroadrunner 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fisichella finished 6th (he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car) - not sure why the brackets are used here.
  • Changed to "Fisichella finished 6th, however he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car...." Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hamilton admitted afterwards that this was his hardest race to date,[36] while Räikkönen admitted he "did not have enough speed - Repetition again (admitted).
  • Changed first "admitted" to "said". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Räikkönen also had to protect his V8 engine from overheating - it the V8 part relevant to the point being made? As Raikkonen only has the one engine I'd say no. To a casual reader this could suggest Raikkonen having other engines.
  • Removed "V8". Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The notes section. I know it's common across race reports to do this, so this comment is not aimed at this article specifically, but I think the article demonstrates particularly well why it's perhaps unneeded. It's pretty much a trivia section by any other name, and duplicates what's already said. Fastest lap is already featured in the infobox. This was the first victory for Fernando Alonso in a McLaren. and This was the McLaren's first 1-2 finsh since the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix. are already mentioned in both the lead and in image captions in the body. That leaves just the lap leaders which perhaps should be shifted to the infobox (new field would be required). That's probably something that needs to be discussed with a wider audience though.
• Removed notes section. The bit about the infobox would almost certainly have to be discussed at WP:F1. Davnel03 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few points raised there, hope that gives you an idea of how the article can be improved. Please take time to consider the best solution to each of the points raised and feel free to ask me if you need clarification on anything. Thanks, AlexJ 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed them things, here is the diff. Davnel03 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At least one wasn't - the "(he later said it felt like a podium given the performance of the car)" brackets. Fixed now. Mark83 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Ok, Alex beat me to a lot of comments, so I'll restrict myself to: this article is poorly written. It lacks narative flow and focus. I suspect that this is because you have read quite a few references and are trying to shoehorn them all in. It is not a competition, we are not trying to see how many references we can collect on a single page, this is precisely why the WP:CITE page states that inline citation is only needed for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". To take Alex's first example, that whole paragraph could be supported by just the last reference, so why there are four citations to three separate articles (one of which isn't available on line, but that is a minor point) I do not know. The fact that the soft tyres are the ones with the stripe is common knowlege, and as such can't possibly be challenged, so that does not require citation. However, the little-known facts that Sam Michael came up with the idea and that 160 pens were used could be handled in a single sentence and cited just the once. Over-cited prose is a corrosive influence on writing style. This writing ethos has led to a horrible, disjointed, "bitty" prose style, that has an almost unreadable "statement, reference, statement, reference" structure, which lacks flow. A secondary consequence is that points of interest and significant occurences have been subsumed into a "he did this, then he did that, and so and so did the other, before thingy did something different" turgid mess. You need to focus on those events which were significant at each stage and build a proper paragraph structure to emphasise them. It would also help if you kept the chronology better separated. At present you have post-race comments scattered in amongst the racing events, and you leap around between teams and drivers willy nilly, so any sense of what is happening in an overall sense is lost. Go away and read some excellent motorsport journalists (Nigel Roebuck, Doug Nye, Don Capp, Mark Hughes, Joe Saward, etc. etc. etc.) and see how they do it. Pyrope 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pyrope, I'm not the best writer in the world. Davnel03 13:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, neither am I, but I don't go pushing every article I add significant material to into the FAC process. If you don't like criticism of your writing style then stop pushing articles to GA/PR/FAC. On the other hand, if you want to learn, listen up and stop being so defensive. The FA guide specifically states that prose should be of near-professional quality, which as you have just agreed, you are not up to at the moment. You are knowlegable and enthusiastic, but you lack the humility and patience to realise that some things take time and should not be rushed. I'm not kidding about reading a few good authors; the more you read (and I'm talking about proper, reasoned, discursive prose, of the type that the above named authors are justly famous, not brief race updates knocked out in five minutes by some overworked hack on a laptop in the paddock) then your writing will improve, I promise. All of the above have written some excellent books, many of which should be available in your local library. I would also point you toward the few remaining "Rear View Mirror" articles online, that Don Capp wrote for Atlas F1 (R.I.P.), which you can still just about access without an Autosport.com subscription. His style is perhaps overly chatty and informal for an encyclopedia (actually, make that far too chatty) but his extended structuring of a long race report is usually exceptional. He has a knack of drawing attention to significant occurences, without losing the ebb and flow of a long event (and the 1961 Monaco race was 100 laps!). Your style at the moment leans too far toward the immediate reportage needed for communicating a news event, rather than the more distanced style needed to realise that not every attempted pass or pit stop needs commenting on. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, I like critism. After all, if no one commented on the way I write, thwen there's no way I can improve. Infact, many, many thanks for the comments, hopefully I can improve for when I start doing the race report for Italy next weekend. Davnel03 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To comment further on what Pyrope has said, I'm a bit more pro-referencing (I take the guideline to mean that inline cites being needed for direct quotes and material likely to be challenged and recommended elsewhere) but agree that the style used in the article is not right. Work on the quality of the citations rather than sheer volume. Taking the tyre stripe thing again:

The weekend marked the first time that soft tyres had a white painted groove on them. This distinguished the difference between the softer and the harder tyres; the harder tyre does not have a white groove.[11] The white groove was applied with white paint marker pens. Over the course of the weekend, 160 pens were used.[12] The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the inital idea,[12] calling it a "pretty good solution."[13]

4 in-line cites appear, citing three different sources. Of these, one citation is mid sentence which shouldn't occur unless absolutely necessary. Having a quick look at the sources, source '13' covers Michael's quote, credits invention of the idea to him and says the groove appears on the softer tyres only. So citation 11 can be dropped altogether as redundant to 13, and then cites 12 and 13 can be moved to appear once end of the paragraph:

The weekend marked the first time that soft tyres had a white painted groove on them. This distinguished the difference between the softer and the harder tyres; the harder tyre does not have a white groove. The white groove was applied with white paint marker pens. Over the course of the weekend, 160 pens were used. The overall reaction to this was good, with Williams technical director Sam Michael, who came up with the initial idea, calling it a "pretty good solution."[12][13]

The text now is much less broken up and reads better as a result while still having all facts backed up by a source. However, the repetition of 'good' now looks worse than ever. Perhaps the sentence could be improved further by totally rewriting it now it's not constrained by the citation locations. I'd change the "The weekend marked" bit at the start to avoid the possible pun with the marker pens. I've also noticed a spelling mistake, inital, in the original. Go through and try and consolidate the citations and move them so while still in an appropriate place, they break up the text as little as possible. AlexJ 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed per comments. Diff is here. Davnel03 13:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved some citations, and removed some citations. Davnel03 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That is some good advice there, now just apply that reasoning process to every paragraph. Pyrope 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Probably more of a learning point than an actual comment on this article, but the way you undertake the task probably affects how you write (well, duh!). I usually write my stuff by reading a bunch of references until I feel I understand the topic, then writeing the piece without really looking at the references, and only adding the references at the end after I've worked over the text a few times. That breaks the very tight linkage between each sentence and the ref it came from - a point Pyrope raised above - and allows you to concentrate more on the logic and flow of what you are saying. It also lessens the chances of accidental copyvio. Worth a try if that's not how you're working at present. 4u1e 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that, very nicely put. Pyrope 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that's something I didn't do, I updated it after every session. Anything else I can do to improve it (I am going to go for FAC after this has finished as I reiterated earlier). Just because the race wasn't exciting it doesn't mean it doesn't stand a chance at FAC. How do you think something like Paragraph 175 got FA? Davnel03 07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote from top section I wrote: I don't want a semi-automatic javascript AndyZ tool to look over this as I already have that installed in my monobook. - so why give me one? Davnel03 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've had a read through, and I think the majority of the issues have basically been addressed above. I have, however, made one or two changes, trivial though they'll seem. I've slightly reworded part of the introduction, the bit which said;

...first time the McLarens had finished in the top two since...

I don't know how to exactly state why, but it just doesn't seem right. There's something that tells me that it's slightly wrong. So I've put it to;

...first time the McLarens had finished first and second since...

That just seems a better way of putting it. I've added a few links where they are needed, i.e. if they weren't already linked up in the article beforehand, but that wasn't really an issue. Otherwise, I couldn't find anything else other than what is stated above. I just thought I'd let you know about the issue I've altered above. Cheers, Lradrama 10:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain what Q1, Q2, and Q3 are in the qualifying paragraph. Only an F1 fan will know that there are three rounds of qualifying. How about "the first round of qualifying (Q1) ..." I first completely understood the process when I got to the qualifying infobox. Royalbroil 04:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed it to your version, which I think sounds better overall. Davnel03 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Upon arriving in Malaysia, a row over the use of cars that the team had not designed": What definition of "row" is used in this context? Do you mean like a tiff/disagreement/argument. Royalbroil 04:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, it basically means that. Should I change it from "row" to "disagreement"? Do you think that would probably go better with the text? Davnel03 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• How about:

After arriving in Malaysia, Spyker protested against Scuderia Toro Rosso over Sculderia's use of cars that the team had not designed. FIA Technical Regulations require...

Or even better: FIA Technical Regulations require... Spyker protested against Scuderia Toro Rosso because Sculderia's did not use cars that the team designed. Royalbroil 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the first version, so I've changed it to that. I still don't think it sounds right though, so you might want to make further tweaks. Davnel03 12:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)