Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix/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 not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix[edit]

previous FAC

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating from old nom: Oppose A lot of writing problems.

"poor form" POV
- How is it? Can you think of a better way to reword it? Davnel03 08:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Poor is POV. Buc 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"problems four laps later and lost places." how many places?
- The source doesn't tell me. Davnel03 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See if you can find one that does. Buc 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The race section could do with a few more mentions of what lap stuff happened on.
- I think things are detailed quite clearly. If I put "on lap ___" for every sentence, it would get a bit repetitive and boring. Davnel03 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reading I got confused about what stage the race was at. Buc 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #35 no entered the same way as all other refs.
- Which exact source are you on about? Sorry, I've since added a ref so that's slightly confused matters. Can you tell me the title of the source, and tell me what I've done wrong.
  - 36
"The test was scheduled to begin on 27 March" scheduled to? was it canceled or something?
"arrived at the test directly...without returning to their European bases" These to statment imply pretty much the same thing.
- Comment Only if you know their bases are in Europe, which a reader new to the topic will not. 4u1e 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do they need to? Buc 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, not going back to Europe from Australia is a completely different story to not going back to say Japan - and a reader new to the topic might reasonably believe that Toyota, Honda and Super Aguri teams were based in that country. So yes, I'd say it was rather more informative as it gives some idea why they didn't. 4u1e 16:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This needs to be explained in that case. Buc 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think it does, to be honest. That would amount to explaining why the information is given in the article, which I suggest is not a good use of space. 4u1e 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay how a ref where it is explained. Buc 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps I'm not understanding what you want explained. Declaring my interests, I wrote the bit we're discussing. The intent of including the fact that the teams didn't go back to Europe was to give a new reader more of a feel for the sport (i.e. that it is largely Europe based) and to explain why the teams went straight to the Malaysian race. I can't think of any way of explaining the first in the article that would make sense. Do you mean that we should spell out that Europe is 20,000 km (ish) from Australia and that Malaysia and Australia are much closer to each other? 4u1e 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "I'm not understanding what you want explained." The reason why the didn't return to Europe. Buc 11:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it's a very, very long way away and they only had nine days. I think I've explained this a bit more clearly, see what you think. I can't see that it needs spelling out any further. Anyone else care to comment? 4u1e 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It looks like it is more clear now. -- Davnel03 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Robert Kubica, Kimi Räikkönen and Lewis Hamilton set the fastest times on consecutive days" when I first read this I thought "consecutive days" ment all three drivers were fastest on two days in a row, but since the test only ran for 3 days that can't be right.
- Re-written: clearer? 4u1e 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, looks better. -- Davnel03 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The teams agreed to extend the testing by one day due to the poor weather" I think "Due to this poor weather, the teams agreed to extend the testing by one day"
I the Background section could use some sub-sections.
- Done by 4u1e. -- Davnel03 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use just one of "qualifying round", "qualifying session" or "QX". Also why are "Q1" and "Q3" in brackets but "Q2" not?
- Brackets was probably just because Q1 and Q3 were interjections, while Q2 was used directly. I've changed all to 'part', which is what is used in the table. I'm not sure the table should say that though - FIA use Q1, Q2 and Q3 and perhaps we should follow suit. Views? 4u1e 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption under Image:F1 whitestripetyres.jpg is a bit long.

Comment I believe the caption is as concise as it can be. IMO, it has to mention the car names, identify them (above/below), say if they have the stripe and give both the colloquial and formal names of the tyre type. I can't see how you could say that in a shorter caption that reads easy, or why you would want/need to. AlexJ 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could drop the car names, since they won't mean much to many readers, but that wouldn't save you much, since you'd then have to say 'the top car', or 'blue car' instead. Otherwise agree, the caption is informative in its current form, and would not be so if content were cut. 4u1e 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buc 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.