Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Japanese Grand Prix/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1995 Japanese Grand Prix[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can improve the article to get it to Good Article status. Can users who comment on the article point to things that could specifically be reworked or reworded in any way, or things that need to be explained in more depth. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by AlexJ

Will get a full review done shortly, however during a glance over I noticed "Over two seconds covered the top ten cars in qualifying." which looked a bit odd. Is it particularly rare for the Top 10 to be covered by more than 2 seconds? AlexJ (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most qualifying sessions nowadays (probably not during Q3 due to the fuel levels), but during the Q1 + Q2, most drivers are covered by the smallest of tenths, with the top ten in a qualifying session probably covered by between eight tenths and about 1.5 seconds. I think it is notable that the gap was significantly big, however the qualifying for the previous race shows a gap of 1.6 seconds for the top ten. Should it be noted that the gap was that big because of the gap between Schumacher & 2nd place Alesi was very big (eight tenths)? D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying was nowhere near as tight back then. I don't think two seconds is an unusually large amount - sometimes the backmarkers were up to 10 seconds off the pace. Readro (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about 1995, but according to Autocourse in 1996 in 9 of the rounds the first 10 on the grid were covered by less than 2 seconds, and in the other 7 races, the gap was greater than 2 seconds. In most cases when it was less than 2 seconds, it wasn't much less. A gaps of two seconds doesn't sound particularly surprising in that context. 4u1e (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I've removed it from the text - as looking at a few other qualifying results for 1995 shows that the gap was also over 2 seconds for the top ten - I guess it just means that the field in terms of quality was more spread out back then. Should I now that I've removed that particular line outline the top ten, possibly saying "Coulthard was sixth, with Irvine seventh and ...... close behind in eighth"? D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my research on Forti, I know that both their drivers were an average of over seven seconds off the pace of the fastest qualifier (Coulthard) for the 1995 season. I believe that the wide-ranging new technical regulations for 1995 which advantaged the teams with the greatest resources, the existence of several teams with very tight budgets (Minardi, Simtek, Pacific), and the appearance of drivers such as Jean-Denis Deletraz all contributed to the dramatic spread of time throughout the 1995 field. It's no co-incidence that the 107% rule was introduced for 1996!-- Diniz (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e comments

My usual random stuff:

  • 'the Constructors' Championship was still up for grabs' - this sounds a bit informal for an encyclopedia. The second part of the sentence ('consisting of...') sounds a bit clumsy, possibly because it's trying to cram in too much information. Perhaps 'the Constructors' Championship could still be won by either Benetton (on 123 points) or Williams (on 102 points), with a total of 32 points available from the last two races.' You'll need to work in which drivers drive for which teams later on, probably just by saying 'Williams/Benetton driver X...' or similar.
    • Yep, reading that back to myself makes the sentence sound quite long and with too much info in there. I've reworked the sentence, removing the bits about the particular drivers. Most of the bit of the drivers was outlined in other parts of the text, so I didn't add anything in particular. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a para break after 'a maximum of 32 points available.', as the topic changes there.
  • Is it worth mentioning that Magnusson replaced Hakkinen at the previous race?
    • I personally thing it's important to outline driver changes before the race to make the reader aware of who's first grand prix it was back after injury, and it's a key part of the event, that it was Hakkinen's first race back after his appendicitus (sp?) operation. Same goes for the Wendlinger bit, he'd been out for several months, so the reader should be made aware of his return. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree that you need to make Hakkinen and Wendlinger's situation clear, but does that include detailing who replaced Hakkinen in a previous race? That doesn't tell us anything that will affect Hakkinen's performance in this race, I suggest.4u1e (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. After all this is the Japanese Grand Prix article - all Pacific GP stuff should be dealt with in the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article. Should I in which case simply remove the sentence: "Jan Magnussen had replaced him for the Pacific race, putting in a solid performance." as it seems irrelevant to the article? D.M.N. (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Practice Session' (and similar terms) don't need to be capitalised.
    • Done. I'm guessing that's because it isn't the name of a person, city, place etc.? D.M.N. (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest spelling out '1st, 2nd' etc as 'first, second'. What do others think?
    • I heard somewhere that you should write first to twenty as letters and anything else after that as numbers (apart from 30, 40, 50 which should be letters). I was going to use that format, but didn't know what others would think of switching from one to the other. Should I do that (first-twenty: letters; anything after (apart from 30, 40, 50, 60) numbers)? D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the background section, it's not really clear what the qualifying process was. The last para in particular doesn't make it very clear that it refers to the final qualifying session.
    • Unfortuantely the 1995 Formula One season article page doesn't say anything about the qualifying proceedure. In fact do we have any Wikipedia articles dedicated to the structure of a race weekend? If not then... D.M.N. (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm - well there's some stuff at Formula One for the current system, but that won't help here. I think the format then was two hour-long free practice sessions, one on Friday, one on Saturday, followed by a single one-hour qualifying session on Saturday. Format for qualifying was simply fastest time wins, but drivers were by then limited to only 12 laps to do it in. Amount of fuel was free - so in effect everyone ran on the minimum possible. There was a warm up session on Saturday morning, probably an hour, but it might have been less. Can anyone else advise on this, preferably with a source! 4u1e (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a problem on many race reports should they get improved. It was a minor problem on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix article as I had to link the related session part to 2007 Formula One season. My next point will have to be discussed at WP:F1 for more opinions, but I personally think that there could be an article created called Formula One qualifying systems which outlines all the past qualifying systems. That could then solve our problem, simply by linking to the appropriate session. Obviously though that needs to be discussed before doing anything drastic. D.M.N. (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was a tyre limit as well of 7 sets per car over a weekend. I also think that the warm up was less than an hour - more likely half an hour or 45 minutes I'd have thought. Readro (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've found sources for the timings - [1] and [2]. Can't believe I forgot about the two qualifying sessions! Also, it seems that there was a 1h 45m practice session on both of Friday and Saturday. Warm-up was half an hour on Sunday morning. Readro (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here's an actual source for the Japanese proceedure, which I'll add a little bit on in the article. And I've started a new topic at WT:F1 about the qualifying proceedure. D.M.N. (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a slight tendency to informal language: 'Blundell had a smash', Alesi was 'a mammoth 8 tenths behind'. Probably best to avoid this. I know it makes the writing sound more interesting, but the interest of our work here should primarily come from the information content and clarity of the writing, not the 'colour'. Well, that's what I think anyway. In any case, you will find it difficult to defend language like this at GA or FA, where it will be perceived as supporting a point of view.
    • Yep, I see your point there. Most of the weasely type language seemed to be in the Pre-Race section when trying to describe qualifying and practice. Anyway, I've reworded some things to try and make them less weasely. I think I've got everything that seems weasely. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later. 4u1e (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ' The drivers were allowed to take to the track four and a half hours before the race start for a thirty-minute warm-up session.' Presumably because of the damp track, but if so you need to spell it out and note that it is unusual.
    • Nope. I think they had warm-up sessions right the way up to I think 2001 when the FIA decided to remove it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, 'they were allowed to' sounds odd! Just say that they 'took to the track' or similar. 4u1e (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Schumacher retained first place at the start, but Alesi was judged to have jumped the start' These two bits probably shouldn't be joined with a 'but' (hurr, hurr - he said butt...). 'But' is for joining things that contradict each other (I thought she loved me, but she did not...), which is not what we're doing here. Suggest 'while', because the two things happened at the same time, or possibly de-couple the facts altogether. 4u1e (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworded it to "Schumacher retained first place at the start. Alesi, who started alongside the Benetton, was judged to have jumped the start...." Is that more readable? D.M.N. (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • There should be no wikilinks in the title per WP:MOS, also the article name should be used, not the official title
  • "afer" typo in the lead
  • "McLaren car" car is redundant
    • How? The user is introduced to the subject, that the subject mentioned (Hakkinen) is driver a McLaren car. Without those two words, the user wouldn't know. I'd prefer more comments before removing it. D.M.N. (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the German flagicon included on the fastest lap and podium section, but not the pole section in the infobox?
    • It's the way the template is designed. I don't wish to change it, otherwise I could mess up the 1,000+ articles that use it. D.M.N. (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen you've done it quite easily. Can I officially call myself an idiot, lol. D.M.N. (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the previous round held at the Aida circuit." I would change this to include the grand prix as someone who is not familiar with F1 would not know what grand prix was hosted there.
  • "Drivers' Championship was wrapped up," sounds a bit like a news report change to decided
    • Changed from "wrapped up" to "already decided". D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were two driver changes heading into the penultimate race. Having been in the Sauber since the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix, Jean-Christophe Boullion was dropped and replaced by Karl Wendlinger." I would mke this into one sentence so it flows a bit better
    • I personally believe that it is better in two sentences, otherwise in my opinion, you are putting two much information into one sentence without a full-stop. D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on a time" I would use "with a time..."
  • "The two Williams and Ferrari cars covered the remaining top six places, with the Williams cars of Hill and David Coulthard 3rd and 5th." this section reads uneasily I would revise it slightly to "The Williams and Ferrari's occupied the remaining top six positions, with Williams' drivers Hill and David Coulthard 3rd and 5th respectively."
    • Good point. Reworded to your version. D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2nd practice session, also an hour and 45 minutes, on Saturday morning." change to "2nd practice session on Saturday morning, which lasted for an hour and 45 minutes."
  • "in the Jordan car" car is redundant
    • See my point above about "the McLaren car". The subject in this case applies to Eddie Irvine. D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill was third in the Williams, with Schumacher marginally behind Hill. The Ferrari's were fifth and eighth, with Alesi again in front of Berger." merge into one sentence
    • I prefer 2 sentences, otherwise, again, too much info is in one sentence. D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pole-position" the article on pole position has no dash so I would remove the dash
  • "Schumacher clinched pole-position in his Benetton B195 with a time of 1:38.023.[2][13] This was Schumacher's tenth pole position of his career.[1]" merge into one sentence
  • "Blundell had his second crash of the weekend in the McLaren in Saturday Practice. The car was not ready for Saturday qualifying, meaning he never set a time, leaving him at the back of the grid." merge into one sentence
    • Again, merging I feel would have too much info in one sentence. D.M.N. (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a race start time of 14:00 JST (GMT +9)." change to "with the race starting at 14:00 JST (GMT +9)."
  • "Alesi completed the top four, eight tenths behind Hill.[15] Twenty-two out of the twenty-four qualifies took the start." merge into one sentence
    • The two sentences aren't really linked, so I would prefer not to merge it. On that note I did find a typo in the 2nd sentence: "qualifies" > "qualifiers". D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to his crash in qualifying, Suzuki was unable to take the start.[16] Roberto Moreno in the Forti also never took the start as his car was suffering from a gearbox problem.[17]" merge these two sentences as well
    • Done, not too much info here, just outlining who never took the start.
  • "Due to the damp track, all drivers opted to start on wet tyres.[4] Schumacher retained first place at the start. change to "Due to the damp track, all drivers opted to start on wet tyres, with[4] Schumacher retaining first place at the start.
    • I'd not prefer to merge again (a) because of the ref in the middle and (b) too much info, and in my view it sounds wrong in one sentence. Is it just me? D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "constantly recording fastest laps - his first one was 1:54.416, use an em dash and there should be no spaces between the dash
  • "Alesi's progress was hampered a little" a little is redundant
  • "At the front, Alesi was continuing to lap faster than Schumacher even when the Benetton was on dry tyres.[17] He was only six seconds behind Schumacher when his Ferrari 412T1 suffered a transmission failure on lap 24." merge into one sentence
    • Disagree. It would not only make the sentence excessively long, but it would mean a huge amount of info is being complied into one sentence. My aim is to make this article a GA (then possibly FA), removing and merging sentences will not do that. D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schumacher pitted for a second time on lap 31, handing the lead to Hill.[2] Schumacher put the pressure on after his second stop, setting the fastest lap on lap 33.[18] Hill pitted on lap 35, leaving Schumacher back in front.[2]" this section reads uneasily mainly due it not being one coherent sentence. Also I would change some of the prose to make it read easier
    • I've merged sentences 2 & 3 of that bit. D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Williams drivers" drivers should have an apostrophe on the end of it
  • "beachi" typo
    • I think its meant to be "beached", so I've changed it to that. D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spoon corner" "Spoon Curve" be consistent
    • References refer to it to "Spoon Curve", so all mentions in article say "Spoon Curve". D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schumacher went on to his ninth victory of the season in a time of 1:36:52.930.[2][13][18]" really bad sentence I would change it to "Schumacher won the race after 53 laps, to claim his ninth victory of the season in a time of 1:36:52.930." and are three refs really needed to clarify this point?
    • Reworded, and removed one ref only. I guess 3 aren't needed to say who win! D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Twenty seconds" should be "20 seconds"
    • Does it matter? I heard someone you should use one to twenty, then there-after 21, 22 etc, and only use letters for tens (e.g. fifty). D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style on numbers an figures states that words should be used from one to ten, and figures from there on so I would change it.
      • Yep, your right now you've quoted MOS. I've changed the numbers to what they should be as a result. D.M.N. (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the quotes you have in the post race section I would use the quote template:

That's all, good luck with the article NapHit (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/1995_Japanese_Grand_Prix/archive1&oldid=199741546"