Talk:2018 24 Hours of Le Mans/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review. Will take a few days. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still working. Some notes below in the interim:

First, thanks for the hard work on this. Most of the fixes are minor and where I could, I just did them myself. Those I had questions about I listed below.

The second sentence in the Background section reads as if the race was "conceived" "by" person A "to" people B and C. Perhaps "proposed" is better than "conceived" here? Not sure what is meant though.

Have reworded MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Background: "In the GTE Drivers' Championship Billy Johnson, Stefan Mücke and Olivier Pla of Ford Chip Ganassi Racing led on 25 points from the Porsche duo of Michael Christensen and Kévin Estre in second and AF Corse's Davide Rigon and Sam Bird third." Should this be "led by 25 points"?

No that would be an inaccurate edit MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Automatic entries: "Automatic entry invitations are earned by teams that won their class in the previous running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, or won championships in the European Le Mans Series, Asian Le Mans Series, and the Michelin GT3 Le Mans Cup." Should this be "or the Michelin GT3 Le Mans Cup"?

No. All winners of the series mentioned above earned entries into the race MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so besides winning a previous running of 24 Hours of Le Mans, to earn automatic entry, a team has to win all three of the latter series/races, not just one of them? --Airborne84 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not the case. A team is not required to win every one of the series mentioned to earn an automatic invitation to the Le Mans race. MWright96 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. However, the conjunction "and" in the sentence seems to imply that championships in all three of the latter series/races must be won to earn automatic entry. Is the following correct then? "Automatic entry invitations are earned by teams that won their class in the previous running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, or won championships in the European Le Mans Series, Asian Le Mans Series, ~~and~~ or the Michelin GT3 Le Mans Cup."

Have reworded the entire sentence MWright96 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~In Automatic entries, the term "FIST-Team AAI" is used. Some explanation of that term would be useful for the reader.~~

The definition of the team is non-existent MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Automatic entries: "JDC-Miller Motorsports, which was invited via driver Misha Goikhberg winning the Jim Trueman Award as "the top sportsman" in the Daytona Prototype International (DPi) category of the 2017 WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, told ACO officials on 9 February that it was to forgo its automatic invitation due to financial trouble concerning its entry." Should this read "it was going to forgo"?

Changed MWright96 (talk)

~~In Warm-up: "Hanley was the fastest non-hybrid LMP1 in the DragonSpeed BR1 and was third." Not sure what this means or who was second.~~

Clarified MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done in 2–3 days. Listed the above in case you want to work in the meantime.

--Airborne84 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes:

1a. Pass. Big challenge in this article is the "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" part. I made some changes throughout. I'm OK with where it is, but I see you've nominated other articles of this type for GA, and I'd encourage you to give those a check for the type of changes I made in para 3 of the lede here. E.g., instead of writing "Signatech Alpine", write "Signatech Alpine team", and instead of "G-Drive Racing Oreca 07", the average reader will probably digest "G-Drive Racing Oreca 07 car" better. I'm not a racing aficionado and I just didn't know what an Oreca 07 was, for example — I just got bogged down in the prose a lot.

1b. Pass. Only issue here was that the lede isn't quite representative of the proportionate weights of the article. Practice, qualifying, race, and post-race form the bulk of the article but get little coverage in the lede. Results and standing are robustly represented. Probably OK in that a racing reader might want to be able to see that up front vs. the story of the race, which is why I'm OK passing on this criterion. Just something to consider for other similar articles and if taking this to FA.

3b. Hold. I'm concerned that the article is 144kb in length with 11,000 words of prose. WP:SIZERULE isn't written in stone, but I'm going to do a bit more research on this before coming back to it

--Airborne84 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Airborne84: I've done a large amount of copy-editing to the article to further help the non-racing enthusiasts understand it better and have made it more concise. With regards to the page size per WP:SIZERULE, I've got User:Dr pda/prosesize installed and it states this page has a readable prose size of 39kb. MWright96 (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Some of my research on similar articles that have reached GA status was helpful. That and your comments, have alleviated most of my concern. I'll make one last complete pass through in the next 24–48 hours (busy IRL), make any final tweaks possible related to readability and conciseness, and should be OK from there. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with it and will pass it. A couple final notes:

Thanks for going through and working on the readability for the average reader. You may have actually gone further than needed, and I pulled it back a bit. I'll suggest for other similar articles using this general rule: if it's a car the average reader wouldn't see on the road, use a clarifying noun for more digestible prose for the layman. E.g., CEFC TRSM Ginetta G60-LT-P1 car, Oreca 07 vehicle, or Cetilar Vilorba Corse Dallara car. If it's a vehicle the average reader could see on the road like a Ford GT, BMW, Aston Martin, Porsche or even the more exotic Ferrari, no "car" or "vehicle" clarification is needed, at least IMO.
Good work on the article. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]