Wikipedia:Peer review/Max Mosley/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Max Mosley[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article made it as far as FAC before the whole Nazi sex orgy thing blew up (I'm not making this up). We've tidied up the article again since then, and I'd like a peer review to identify necessary improvements before going for FA again.

Cheers, 4u1e (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008

  • The year sub-headings shouldn't have hyphens. For example, 1993-1997 should either have an en dash or be phrased 1993 to 1997. Also chech the page ranges in the references. The more tedious formatting you do now, the less headaches you'll have at FAC.
  • I understand that the "incident" destroyed the FAC chances of this article before, and you most likely want to de-emphazise it to avoid a repeat. However, the current text begs one question from me: how did this guy not get fired? What is the level of power he has that made it possible for him to survive the backlash? Maybe this is a cultural thing in Britain/Europe that I don't get; anybody that did this in the US would be sacked immediately. I don't want to see the page become unbalanced with scandal info, but a sentence or two more on the above topic probably wouldn't hurt. You could combine any additions with the one-sentence paragraph in the section. Stubby paragraphs are usually detected by FAC reviewers, including myself.
  • It's very hard to know how to judge the amount of emphasis to put on this. I find it completely remarkable that he has kept his job, it's as unusual here as it would be in the States, yet not only is he still there but it's looking more and more likely that he will stay on after October 2009. (It's due not just to the degree of power he wields, but also a personality that is able to withstand the situation: I suspect it has something to do with his unique upbringing, but that's WP:OR). On the other hand, he's won a court case that this was an invasion of privacy, and other reviewers have complained that there is too much emphasis on it. I will consider whether we can better explain how he did it (although of course it was all behind closed doors) without actually using more text. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Mosley have anything interesting to say about the proposed new F1 rules designed to level the playing field? It mentions budget capping already, but if an update is to be made, this is the time.
  • He announced them! I'm not sure press reports that they're Bernie's ideas are accurate. The Max and Bernie show seems to be back on the road. I'll consider what to add. Trouble is, this is a regular tactic of his: announce dramatic changes as a fait accompli so that when the teams eventually compromise on some less radical changes that they don't want, they feel it's a victory. If I described every time he'd done this over the last 10 years or so, we'd have a very long article. I shouldn't hold your breath for them to happen. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: AtlasF1 and GPUpdate are the only two that are a bit shaky. GPUpdate is the shakier of the two, in my view. Only newspaper or magazine articles/sites should be italicized.
  • AtlasF1 is a very longstanding and well-considered site, and more importantly a few years ago its content was bought, and is now hosted ('published'), by Autosport, so I'm completely happy it's a suitable source. GPUpdate is a legit news site, so I'm not sure why there should be any problem with that either. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't suppose a free picture of him is avaliable?
  • I wish. The search goes on. :) 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of prose comments before I go: "Mosley is" begins the last two paragraphs of the lead. Try to change one of them to mix up the writing. Also, the second one is repeated in the first paragraph of the body.
  • Links for countries like France, Germany and Britain have fallen out of favor at FAC recently. There has recently been a push to avoid having low-value and duplicate links. The Union Movement links in the first two sections are an example of the latter. In those cases, only the first use should be linked. It would be a good idea to check for this throughout. Other examples of low-value links early in the text include hunting and yacht. Again, check for other common words.
  • Done. It would actually be useful to have a specific link for the type of hunting involved (on horse and with hounds), but the hunting articles are in a bit of disarray, to my eyes, anyway. 4u1e (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for passive voice, like what is seen in "The motor racing journalist Alan Henry describes the younger Mosley as...". In this case, it should be "described", especially since the book is from 1992. It's better to avoid present tense in that situation.

That will be enough for you to make some good improvements before another FAC. If you want more prose (or other) comments, please ask here or on my talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC) All of that and I barely got into the writing.[reply]

Glad to hear comments on the writing as well, that's why we're here. Thanks for the time and effort. 4u1e (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back for a close prose review. I have limited time due to real life interference, so I'll keep it relatively brief.
  • Is the period always included in the phrase "Free speech for fascists.", from the early life section?
  • March Engineering: "According to Bernie Ecclestone's biographer, Terry Lovell, the money came from Mosley's half- brother, Jonathan Guinness." Extra space after hyphen.
  • Formula One Constructors Association: "The GPCA was the forerunner of Formula One Constructors Association..." Should it be "the Formula One Constructors Association..."?
  • "the independent teams which were primarily UK based" Try the less wordy "the primarily UK based independent teams".
  • Done, as part of a re-write of that section. 4u1e (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an empty sub-sub-header on F1 commercial rights.
  • Removed, for now. 4u1e (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also double-check that all the prose comments at the last FAC are resolved. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Max_Mosley/archive1&oldid=1088818883"