Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Hungarian 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 by SandyGeorgia 00:16, 25 December 2010 [1].

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix[edit]

Nominator(s): --Midgrid (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been listed as a good article and has undergone a second peer review since its first nomination for FA status in March. Reviewers may wish to look at 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, 2008 Japanese Grand Prix and 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix for examples of similar articles already brought up to FA standard. Thank you in advance for all comments!--Midgrid (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images Flags use should follow MOS and be annotated with with the state's name Fasach Nua (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the MoS says that "However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics are easier to read if {{flag}} is used throughout", so I would agree with that for the qualifying and race results tables. I have added annotations to the flags in the infobox in the same way as done in 2009 Giro d'Italia, another FA.--Midgrid (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at the first PR, and gave the article a thorough copyedit a few weeks ago. The article has come a long way since the last FAC, and the prose in particular has improved to the extent that I believe the article deserves to be promoted to FA status. Aptery gial 07:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Is there a difference between "Formula One Administration" and "Formula One Management"? Otherwise thw sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are separate subsidiaries of Formula One Group. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article says that FOM runs the formula1.com website (which is true), but the website itself is copyrighted to FOA, so I'll change the one reference that listed FOM.--Midgrid (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --Pres N 22:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments – Noticed that Brianboulton already reviewed the sources, but he didn't say whether he did spot-checks. I did so, and only noticed one issue, along with a couple of formatting matters.

~~In reference 28, I don't see the Kimi Raikkonen quote from the article. There's a lot of interview comments here, so it's possible I'm missing something that's under my nose.~~

You're right! I used the wrong link.--Midgrid (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reference 13 should have a PDF designation like the following reference has.~~

These two references should actually have been identical; I have merged them.--Midgrid (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full article in reference 33 is apparently behind a paywall, so the citation should include a note along the lines of "subscription required". The format= parameter of the cite templates works well for this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Midgrid (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken a look at the writing of the article, and for the most part I liked what I saw. There were only a few things I wanted to comment on, and they are below.

Practice and qualifying: The first paragraph of this section is a single sentence, which normally comes off as stubby. This is especially true when the paragraphs around it are much larger, like in this article. Would it be possible to merge this effectively with the next paragraph?

Done.--Midgrid (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race: In a couple places here, I see "in order to", which most of the time is just unneeded wordiness. See if you can take those out.

Done.--Midgrid (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Symonds was linked in an earlier section, so there's really no need for another link here. On that subject, he's listed as an Engineering Director here and a Technical Director earlier. Which of these is his actual job title? Or is it both? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His actual job title was "Executive Director of Engineering", so I've changed it to that. Due to the often complex and byzantine hierarchies of job descriptions in modern F1 teams, he would often just be referred to as the Technical Director, but that titled role was actually taken by Bob Bell.--Midgrid (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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