Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Italian Grand Prix/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008 Italian 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 need to know if there's anything I've missed before I nominate it for GA (I don't think I'll take this to FAC). The template we are following for the article are the two FAs 1995 Japanese Grand Prix and 1995 Pacific Grand Prix. It is stylistically identical to 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which has been PR'ed here. Thanks in advance for the criticism. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ's comments

Lead

Before we get started, is it just me who reads formally as formerly in all these race reports? Anyway onto the PR:

I had to read it a couple of times at first, but you get used to it. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Me too, but it is entirely logical... 4u1e (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Rain early in the race allowed Vettel to establish a solid lead over Kovalainen, giving him his first Formula One victory." - Sentence implies the two things are linked, while in reality, the early rain was only part of what gave him the victory.
  • "Hamilton finished in seventh behind sixth-placed rival Felipe Massa, narrowing the lead in the Championship once more with four races remaining." - Massa was Hamilton's sixth rival? Re-jig the order to make it clearer.

Background

  • "At the previous race, Hamilton had been penalised for cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage over Räikkönen in the closing laps." - Make it clear the penalty was applied post-race. Change first word At>After?
  • "meant that Ferrari's home race had the potential to be a turning point in the season." I guess you've added this for a bit of variety which is fine, but would this confuse a reader unfamiliar to the subject?
    • I'm not sure. How would it be confusing? Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Say I'm new to F1, and got no idea that Ferrari are Italian. So now I'm told that Ferrari's home race has the potential to be a turning point. Is that this race? Or perhaps the race after this? AlexJ (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practice and qualifying

  • "Both sessions lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes." - Not sure about this, personally I don't like seeing "1 hour" with a figure, but I realise the MOS says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". Any of these look better: "lasted one hour and thirty minutes", "lasted one and a half hours", "lasted an hour and a half"?
  • "Adrian Sutil was quickest with a time of 1:32.842 in the first session, more than half a second quicker than Rubens Barrichello and Giancarlo Fisichella." - Better as "...quicker than the next fastest drivers Rubens..."?
  • "The session was eventually called to a halt with four minutes to go" - eventually seems unnecessary: to my knowledge, there was no delay or anything to the session. "Called to a halt" - simpler as stopped?
  • "The track dried out in the second session; Räikkönen adapted best with a lap of 1:23.861" - "adapted best to the changed conditions"?
  • "Vettel became the youngest driver in the [[history of Formula One]] to take pole position" - Link to History of F1 doesn't add much. The link you do want to get in there somewhere is [[List of Formula One driver records#Youngest pole position winners]] - it might mean reworking the sentence.
    • I changed it to "Vettel became the [[List of Formula One driver records#Youngest pole position winners|youngest driver]] in the history of Formula One to take [[pole position]]," which gets that link in there but preserves the pole position link. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The performance was McLaren's only result outside the top ten in qualifying all season." Bit clunky - needs rewording. Avoid "the performance" if possible.
    • "I only did a minor change, to "This was McLaren's only result outside the top ten in qualifying all season." Do you think that's enough? Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jenson Button and Kazuki Nakajima began the race from the pitlane" - Really picky, but I tend to prefer "started" to "began" when referring to F1. It's generally the way others view it too; officially the FIA have a start procedure, not a begin procedure. It's the start/finish line not the beginning/end line.
    • I changed that bit. I understand what you mean, but I'm generally trying to provide some kind of variety in the text, so I use both "started" and "began". I usually use what seems best in the context. Saying "started" all the time would probably look a little clunky. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The race began at 14:00 local time (UTC+1) behind the safety car." - those last four words are buried away slightly, considering that such an event is not a normal procedure. The reader may be asking for example 'Why did we start behind the safety car?' and 'What does it mean to start behind the safety car'.
    • Now reads "The race began at 14:00 local time (UTC+1), behind the safety car, because of the rain, meaning that there would be a rolling start." I would say the link to "rolling start" should explain enough, even if the article claims that Formula One does not have "proper rolling starts". Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Räikkönen and Hamilton both passed Coulthard to take 12th and 13th positions on the same lap." missing a "respectively".
  • "Emerging ahead of the Ferrari, he gave the place back." - explain for the unfamiliar reader, he gave the place back to avoid being penalised for taking an unfair advantage.
    • Changed to "Emerging ahead of the Ferrari, he gave the place back, returning the advantage and avoiding a penalty." Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Massa eventually consolidated fourth on lap 15." - Better as "consolidated fourth place"?
  • "Coulthard was the first driver to try intermediate wet-weather tyres when he pitted on lap 28." - Last we heard about the weather was "Rain began to fall again on lap 26." What happened between 26 and 28 for DC to downgrade his wets to inters?
    • The rain there didn't last for long. I added that it only lasted for five minutes. I seem to remember that Coulthard pitted when it was still raining. I think everybody thought the change was premature, as indicated by the fact he went straight through the first corner! Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any chance we can find a comment on DC being premature with the switch from someone at a reliable source? AlexJ (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vettel crossed the finish line on lap 53 by 12.512 seconds over Kovalainen" - Is ten-thousandth second accuracy (something like 0.0008% of 12.5seconds) really necessary here?
    • I had that there as we have lap times to the thousandth, but it's not a huge loss if I drop it to 12.5, so I did. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, this is quite a common 'mistake' to be made, not just in F1 articles, but generally. Just because we know something to quite a few decimal places doesn't mean we have to use them all. Three dp accuracy is great for things like qualifying laps where there's very little between them, but for comfortable race victory margins, we don't need them all. Try and think how accurate a TV commentator for example would give the figures. AlexJ (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Räikkönen finished in ninth position, just outside the points," - using "the points" like that might be jargon to the unfamiliar reader.
    • I don't actually think mentioning "points" at all there is necessary.
  • "with a 1:28.047 on the final lap." - better as "setting the fastest laptime of 1:28.047 on the final lap."?

Post-race

  • "As the race winner, Vettel appeared on the podium and in the subsequent press conference." - Perhaps better to mention here that the top-three attended the podium & PC rather than have "Kovalainen and Kubica joined Vettel on the podium and press conference." later on.
    • I changed bits there. I think I had it like that so the lead-in to Kovalainen's quote wasn't just one sentence. It looks lonely now... Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Toyota's failure to score at the race meant that they were tied with Alonso's Renault team" - Alonso's Renault team suggests his ownership/leadership of the team. Needs reworking.

Other stuff

  • WRT references, you seem to have relied entirely on FIA, FOM (a primary source and a subject affiliated source) and Autosport (the only independent source used). For a bit of variety, is there anything on BBC Sport/GrandPrix.com than could be used for referencing?
    • You're right. I'll look at adding some other sources. I was going to get Diniz to replace some of the references with Autocourse when it comes out (Diniz doesn't know that yet, that'll teach him to sign up to this insane project!) Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed one of the major race sources and the press conference to GrandPrix.com, as the text is the same (really!) I'll look at BBC Sport. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, had to try a lot harder to find anything to mention with this one, so well done for that. Any questions with what I've said, just ask. AlexJ (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Useful advice as ever. I think I'm getting the hang of this (doesn't make it any easier!) And thanks for being so prompt again. Japan next... Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
  • Lead: "Rain early in the race allowed Vettel to establish a solid lead over Kovalainen, which gave him his first Formula One victory." That undersells it a bit doesn't it? It wasn't just the rain early in the race, he maintained a front-running pace to the end (from memory, Hamilton was the only one who looked as if he might take victory from him). It was also the first victory for Toro Rosso (former Minardi, minnows of F1, blah, blah) and makes Vettel the youngest F1 race winnner! Can we beef that section up a bit? I know he made it look easy, but it really was a remarkable performance.[citation needed]
    • There is a bit of underselling there. I'll look at expanding it, adding those two things. But they are dealt with in post-race. According to ITV Hamilton looked like he could have caught Vettel, but I mean seriously, really? The lead is a little short now, so a little more couldn't hurt. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added that. How's that? Think Franz Tost will be happy? Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ecstatic, I'm sure. ;-) Looks good, although I'd put "which he extended as the track dried", rather than "which he was able to extend as the track dried". 4u1e (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed. Congratulations on the Damon Hill FAR by the way. F1 Racing mentioned the article in the November edition. I'm not sure how pleased you should be about that. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Depends. What did they say? That was before the FAR work was finished, of course. 4u1e (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "Heading into the 14th race of the season, McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton was leading" replace "was leading" with "led"? Not sure why, just seems better...
  • Background: "...Hamilton was leading the Drivers' Championship with 76 points; Ferrari driver Felipe Massa was second on 74 points, two points behind Hamilton." Do we need to specify both that Massa was on 74 points and that he was two points behind?
  • Background: "Robert Kubica was third on 58 points in a BMW, with Massa's Ferrari team-mate Kimi Räikkönen fourth on 57 points". More concise to say "BMW's Robert Kubica"? Not sure the joining word here should be "with" - wouldn't "and" be more appropriate? In what way is Kubica with Raikkonen?
    • See above for AlexJ's comment about Alonso's Renault team (but the other way round). "And" would be better. I changed it. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but as you say, it's the other way round. He really is "BMW's Kubica" in exactly the way that Renault is not Alonso's! 4u1e (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This starting to look like an FAC! BMW doesn't own Kubica, he's not their personal slave (as far as I know). You can change it if you so wish. :) Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not passionate about it! 4u1e (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come. 4u1e (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LeaveSleaves comments

I didn't read most of the comments above. So if I'm repeating any of the concerns already answered, please ignore them.

Lead:

  • Is it just me or does somebody else feels that the second paragraph actually has nothing to do with the race? It feels more of a comment, something that a magazine article or an editorial would say. I don't feel such a comment should be included, at least in the race. On the other hand I notice there is no mention in rest of the article about drivers' attitude in this race towards chicane cutting. I read/heard this repeatedly being commented that drivers were conservative in overtaking and were rescinding their advantage rather immediately on slightest doubt.
    • I think both of those comments could tie together. If I mention the chicane cutting nervous thing in "Background" and add a sentence to the second paragraph along the same lines, we could solve both problems. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just feel that that paragraph isn't exactly lead material. It did not have any direct effect on the race (if you exclude drivers' change of attitude towards overtaking at corners). If you still feel that it is necessary, I'd suggest making it third paragraph to separate it from the race events. LeaveSleaves talk 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've written an alternate lead in my sandbox (one of them!) This one substitutes pre-race for consequences, maybe making it more race-centric. The top one is the new one, the bottom the old one, for comparison. Let me know what you think. Apterygial 03:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better, albeit shorter now. If you feel it is shorter, I could suggest adding some details on qualifying since that was perhaps the only other notable part of the weekend. LeaveSleaves talk 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not actually shorter; both are 224 words. I tried to avoid talking about qualifying by saying "... started in ..." I like it much better than the old one, actually. I'll replace the article version. Apterygial 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • The close nature of the Championship meant that Ferrari's home race had the potential to be a turning point in the season. Bit of an opinion?
    • Could be. To be honest It took me two hours to write that paragraph. I couldn't think of anything else to write there. Still can't. Would it help if I cited it? Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raikkonnen's speculated retirement could use a source.
    • I was using the BBC source for all of that sentence, but I'll see if I can find something else too. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BBC source doesn't mention retirement. Could be a good idea to see another source since that's a pretty strong statement. LeaveSleaves talk 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a Formula1.com source which mentions the speculation. Apterygial 02:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P&Q:

  • with only the second giving teams any chance to run dry-weather tyres.: Should be changed to the second one or the second session.
  • Hamilton only completed eight laps, and finished with a time almost 11 seconds behind Glock: Unnecessary attention to Hamilton?
  • Some inconsistency in numbering format: 11th/12th for Kubica/Fisichella; fourteenth/fifteenth for Raikkonen/Hamilton

Race:

  • Bourdais stalled or should it be Bourdais' car stalled?
  • Two different usages:pitlane and pit-lane.
  • his BMW team-mate: Is a repeat mention necessary? It is made clear earlier in the article.
  • Similar issue as P&Q: 12th, 13th and more ahead.
  • Caption for Massa image: Felipe Massa extended his lead over Lewis Hamilton at the Grand Prix. I hope it means lead in terms of time difference. At the end of race report, that sounds rather ambiguous.

Post-race:

  • Kovalainen's McLaren team-mate: Again, like in race section, sounds odd repeating it. Also, Hamilton is mentioned earlier in the section with his remarks on Vettel. Could be a good idea to collate all comments together.
    • Removed the team-mate business. I don't really want to move the comments, as his first deals with Vettel and the second his own race and the Championships. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • closed the gap in the Constructors' Championship: Between which teams?

That's all for now. LeaveSleaves talk 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I'm closing this to nominate for GA, but the PR for 2008 Japanese Grand Prix is here. Apterygial 09:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2008_Italian_Grand_Prix/archive1&oldid=1110501068"