Talk:2015 Malaysian Grand Prix

In case it comes up...

Based that we use nearby cities for some Grands Prix, such as Barcelona for Spain, Budapest for Hungary, and Austin for United States, all of which lie outside the city limits of the cities we use to state their locations, I changed this to Kuala Lumpur. Twirlypen (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

TBA or None for next year's event

Raising this issue so that I do not violate 3RR over such a senseless issue. Cases can be seen in the edit history. Thoughts? Twirlypen (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Template messages

I added a couple of template messages. This article needs work. The qualifying report is written like a news piece at best, with expressions like caused a few dramas... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Weather info

Any idea where to get more information about the weather? Air temperature, humidity and so forth? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Malaysian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Numbers between one and twelve need to be spelled out.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass:

   Fix the issues with the numbers, and it's a pass.--Nascar king 17:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe I got them all. Thank you for the swift review! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Then I hereby give 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.--Nascar king 13:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some further fixes, mostly keeping in line with WP:OLINK, and breaking up the Background section as it involved different topics. This article got GA fairly quickly, I figured a push in the right direction towards FA wouldn't hurt. Doesn't seem like it needs much work. Twirlypen (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Community reassessment

2015 Malaysian Grand Prix

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Article kept as GA following changes. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Having read through this article, I noticed that large sections of prose (specifically in the qualifying and race reports) are currently not attributed to any sources. I feel that this at odds with the "verifiable" good article criterium. This lack of references makes me wondered whether the article should have received GA status in the first place and what the community's stance on this is, hence why I decided to request community reassessment. Tvx1 16:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not quite follow. Yes, unlike in later articles when I was more adapt to Wikipedia, the references are at the end of each section rather than the same reference repeated after each paragraph. But every statement is referenced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not only the position, it is also the quantity. You've put the bar really high regarding number of refs for 2015 Formula One season and then here you're satisfied with just one ref each for the qualifying and race reports. I'd say there should be at the very least one different ref per paragraph. But even more would be preferable. There are more than enough sites out their which report on each Grand Prix. Some even run specific stories on the performances of the individual teams each race. Tvx1 15:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I have added more sources. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96 (formerly Z105space)

First bunch

• There should be something about the points standings heading into the race and after the event.

 Done

• I don't think the post-qualifying sub-section should exist since it only has one sentence. It could easily be placed in the qualifying section.

 Done Will address the rest tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I note that article has two uses of the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper, and three times sources from planetf1.com are in the entry. These two sites are unreliable, and should be replaced.

 Done I have replaced the PlanetF1 references, as well as one of the Daily Mail ones. However, the second one sources a direct opinion voiced by the commentator of the Daily Mail. While we might not use the Daily Mail as a reliable source for many facts, I am sure we can trust on them being a reliable source for their own opinions.

That is what I have for now. i am surprised how the reviewer did not notice these issues. MWright96 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please reevaluate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: I made edits to reduce slang in the article, and will have probably have another look tomorrow. MWright96 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep – Progress has been made through this reassessment review and I am satisfied that the status of GA can be kept. MWright96 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Query: Tvx1, what is your opinion of the article in its current state. Has enough work been done so that you are satisfied as to the article's verifiability? Or is more needed? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's still a bit meagre I feel. Just look at how many different sources there are in the report section of 2015 Formula One season. Moreover, I'm not sure the WikiProject is still in favor of using Motorsport.com as a source. Tvx1 08:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Tvx1: Motorsport.com has by now introduced credit to work they use from Wikipedia. I therefore think that there is no more reason to boycott them. If you have specific suggestions on how the article can be improved, feel free to leave them here and I'll fix them. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• However, a source using Wikipedia as a source means that their reliability is compromised. I still some wikiproject members replacing Motorsport.com as a source from time to time. That being said, I still feel like that the qualifying and race reports can still do with some additional inline citations. Some source specifically run stories on the different teams' performances during a grand prix. Tvx1 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Tvx1: I hear you, it's a fair point. However, are those two concerns really enough to strip the article of GA status? For FA, I'd agree. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I just took a look at the article's lead while looking at the sourcing in general, and wondered at the unusually large number of inline source citations. It seems to be because the bulk of the lead's information does not appear in the body of the article, a clear violation of WP:LEAD. This really needs to be fixed; only the first sentence of the second paragraph and the second sentence of the final paragraph seem to be in the article proper. Not even the common and actual names of the race appear in the body. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Zwerg Nase, I'm just applying the same standards you applied to 2015 Formula One season before supporting it being promoted to GA. Tvx1 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now placed the necessary information from the lead into the body and made some more work towards references, giving a bigger variety. However, I still do not quite understand Tvx1's reservations about inline citations. Both qualifying and race are sourced from numerous different media outlets. Yes, there are websites that give team-per-team previews and reviews of the race. But a) is a team-per-team preview/review not in the scope of a GA and b) is it probably not in the scope of a general encyclopedia to begin with. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, the new paragraph is a good start, and I've added the race date to it, but there are still several facts in the lead that I don't see in the article, and they need to be there:

• thirty-fifth race overall
• Hamilton's 40th career pole position
• Vettel's 40th career victory
• Ferrari's first victory since 2013 Spanish Grand Prix

As for the additional inline citations, perhaps Tvx1 could add a couple of "citation needed" templates where he believes the current sources are inadequate to support the material preceding it. The only place I noticed that should probably gain a cite is the end of the first paragraph under Free practice. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look. Tvx1 14:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll also add the necessary infos BlueMoonset mentioned later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I have now added the infos from the lead into the article body. All except the 53rd running of the GP overall since I was unable to find a reliable source for that. I have taken that piece out of the lead accordingly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Tvx1: Can we close the reassessement? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, the issues I raised have all been addressed, so it's up to Tvx1 to take that look and let us know where he'd like those additional inline citations, assuming he still does. It would be nice to get this reassessment finished, but the article remains a GA, and since this is a community reassessment, it would require consensus for it to be delisted. Practically, this means Tvx1 would need to convince others that the article should be delisted, which in my estimation will require more specific evidence than has been provided thus far. There is already one "keep" recommendation on record, and if Tvx1 doesn't give some cogent examples soon, I'm likely to make that assessment myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would be a little less threatening. Anyway I've had a look and added templates where more inline citations are warranted. Additionally I would added another source to the second paragraph of the race section to make the referencing a bit broader. Tvx1 17:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Everything should be alright now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1 and BlueMoonset: Can I count both of you as keep now? Since we seem to be the only people in this discussion, I would close this reassessment if that is the case. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, there still is a citation needed tag in the race section. Tvx1 14:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1: How could I oversee that? Resolved. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, not exactly I'm afraid. The source you used doesn't mention anything about Button having a turbo failure. Tvx1 19:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Sorry, I thought I only had to do Maldonado. I added another source for Button. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. That should have the issues resolves. Looks much better now with a number of inline citations instead of just one ref at the end of each entire section. Tvx1 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: issues where the nomination was felt to fall short of the GA criteria have been addressed. We now need to find, according to number 7 of the guidelines for community reassessments, an uninvolved editor to close this, which means none of us here. Perhaps you know someone from one of the WikiProjects who participates in the GA space and can make the decision? I'm happy to help anyone with the mechanics of closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150324183742/https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/formula-1-mercedes-making-f1-boring-rivals-fear-101157334--f1.html to https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/formula-1-mercedes-making-f1-boring-rivals-fear-101157334--f1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gulf-times.com/Mobile/Sport/192/details/430938/Are-Mercedes-making-F1-boring?-Rivals-fear-so

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)