Wikipedia:Peer review/2012 Brazilian Grand Prix/archive1

2012 Brazilian Grand Prix

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it to a level where I believe it might be close to putting it up for GA nomination. Please give me notes on what can still be improved here.

Thanks, Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is the right way and place to provide comments; it is my first contribution to a peer review. I have never heard of a 'left diffuser'; they are central structures at the rear. Is it possible that the damage was to Vettel's side pod? Also I was bothered by two references to Schumacher. I've edited the sentence about his qualifying - it was very awkward before. I'm worried that the referenced sentence about Schumacher helping Vettel reads awkwardly because it begins as a sentence about Räikkönen. However, it's a good article about an exciting race! Hayttom 14:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Double blown diffusers had famously been introduced to F1 in order to increase rear downforce, a matter for a lot of controversy back in 2009: [1]. This was outlawed before the 2014 season. Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Single or double, it's still in the center of the back of the car (between the rear wheels). A double diffuser would have a top and bottom part, not left or right. The damage on Vettel's car was the floor plate on the left side (and a bit to the side pod.). See this picture. Tvx1 21:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to get this to a Good Article, my advice would be to look at one of the featured race reports (2008 Brazilian Grand Prix is a good example as it is another season finale) and try to bring this article up to a similar standard. As things stand now:

1) The article is currently lacking a paragraph providing an overview of the practice sessions - you don't have to go into much detail really.

2) The post-race section is too brief. There should be quotes and reactions from Vettel and Alonso, as well as a mention of any plaudits Vettel received from the paddock or world figures for winning his third title. A quote from Schumacher on his retirement would also be good. Again, it would be good to follow the style of the 2008 report.

3) For a good article, you'll want to improve the quality of the prose and the referencing, particularly in the race section. In an encyclopedia you should always be using a formal tone, and colloquialisms like "grab the title" or "unable to answer" must be avoided.

Hope that was helpful, and all the best on article. QueenCake (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I'll see to it! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc

First, I have to thank you for this excellent work. Although it is very advanced, it also lacks from several facts.

• Circumstances of the race: The work lacks from data about the situation such as flood rate and temperature. This information is important to predict if it would be accidents in the working race or not. Furthermore, it lacks also about the overview of the media conferences of competitors and administrators of before the race.
• Report: The report is well done and well revised as it involves all the information about the race and the results. However, it lacks of the past performances of the competitors in precedent Brazilian Grand Prix.
• Pictures: The work lacks of pictures... the Victory Ceremony Pictures... Some works should been done to improve this.
• What happened after that: The work just cited what happened after the race briefly in the first and the last part of the work... There are not an overview about press meetings that are evidently done after the F1 race, it is lacks also from information about if some competitors had decided to work or retire... excepting for the case of Schumacher.

I think that the work has to be reviewed.--Csisc (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)