Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1982 Formula One World Championship/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [1].

1982 Formula One World Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. I had entered this article for FA about a year ago, but received only one comment before it was closed. I am hoping for more activity this time around. I have made some changes, but unfortunately, a nomination at peer review did not yield any involvement, so there was no external input since the last FA nomination failed. I would be glad to read your comments and suggestions to hopefully bring this article to FA status soon! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Downtown_Detroit_Street_Circuit.svg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Have added the best source I could find to the image, I hope it is sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

No spotchecks carried out
Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
Formats: a few issues:

Ref 12: spacing
Ref 38: retrieval date missing
Ref 58: archive date in inconsistent format. This recurs in 62, 66, 74, 81, 86, 93, 96, 99, 104, 107 and 110 (check for others)
Ref 115 lacks an archive date
Ref 116: clarify publisher: "Ask Steven" is I believe the name of the feature – the publisher is ESPN

Quality/reliability: Generall OK, but:

What makes F1 Fanatic a high quality reliable source? (refs 39, 41)

@Brianboulton: This has been discussed multiple times on the WikiProject, always with the consensus that, since the site is run by a professional journalist (who actually added more staff a while back), it is not treated as a blog, but as a reliable news source. Will get to the other points later, for now, thank you for going over the sources! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the sources appear to be of the required quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

@Zwerg Nase: Unfortunately this has fallen into the Older section without any prose review, again. I understand that sports articles usually struggle for reviews, and I don't particularly want to archive this again but I don't have much choice. Have you reached out to folks who have written or reviewed sports-related articles? --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe SSSB, Scjessey, Mclarenfan17, Corvus tristis, and DH85868993 can chip in, considering they are frequent editors on the F1 WikiProject. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think MWright96 and Tvx1 have more expertise in prose review than me as they had experience with 2015 article. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.