Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Formula One/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Formula One[edit]

Accurate, well-written, well-organized, and comprehensive. This is a partial self-nom. The concerns raised in its last nomination have been thoroughly addressed. — Dan | Talk 05:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object
    1. The image Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but no fair use rationale is given.
    2. The image Image:Rntbrm3litergp.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but is not directly related to the article. Any fair use claim is doubtful, and the image should probably be removed.
    3. The image Image:BAR pitstop.jpg is under a license of "used with permission". This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
    --Carnildo 06:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed the images and put in several of my own (all cc-by-sa) which seemed relevant. Unfortunately, it might prove difficult to find freely-licensed images of early F1 races, but I've made the best of present resources. — Dan | Talk 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This sport is catching popularity in the USA due to Danika Patrick, but this gives newbies a taste of what F1 is like. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Object (but almost a support) - Can you please look at the first paragraph in the section "The Future of Formula One" - "Rule changes". Such phrases as "Many within Formula One believe", "have also recently been in doubt" and particularly, "it is said that even..." are all rather weaselish terms. One would be ok, but three in one paragraph makes me think "well who is saying these things?". I'm sure it's well founded but it reads like unsubstantiated speculation, so it's really the tone of it that isn't quite right, rather than the substance. Some old circuits "have to go" and "not safe from the chop" - very colloquial. Could you reword them? I've made some very minor copyedits elsewhere in the article, but I didn't want to fiddle with that paragraph because I think the whole paragraph should be rewritten, and I'm not sure how to best rewrite it. That is my only criticism. I think everything else is excellent. If you can rework that paragraph, I'll definately support. Rossrs 14:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've attempted to rewrite the paragraph (I think you meant "Venue changes" rather than "Rule changes"), removing most of the 'weaselish' and colloquial phrases. doctorvee 16:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
      • sorry, I did mean "Venue changes" - thank you, everything looks great! Rossrs 21:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support' Object: Some additions needed:
  1. =Modern F1= is too short in comparison to the other history sections. Please increase the length.
  2. ...a qualifying session determines..., I think this should be more specific. Fastest lap time?
  3. Giuseppe Farina won the first... The person is not introduced. It should go like this: "Italian driver GF..."
  4. Cooper is linked to a dab page
  5. Similarly, the nationality of Sterling Moss and others should be mentioned
  6. Please use the wikipedia:footnote3 style of referencing instead of placing the inline link in the current fashion. (see Australia)
  7. How are the points distributed? Is there a page on WP?
  8. Please do not use editable subsections under =external links=, use the ; (semi-colon) to create a heading. (See Economy of India)
  9. Does Geoff Crammond & MicroProse merit an inclusion under =See also=? Hardly anything to do with the core topic.

Otherwise a good article worthy of joining the few FAs we have. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

    • I think we've taken care of every problem except the one with referencing. That page explaining how it works made my head spin. Might it be possible to follow the old way of just collating every source in the references section? Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've addressed the referencing. There's now a very brief summary of the points system under "racing and strategy", but that section's main article, Formula One racing, addresses it in much more depth. — Dan | Talk 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Good work, but the ==Reference= section is not done correctly. See Geography of India. The =notes= section handles {{note}}. While all references should be collected together in a bulleted list in a =References= section, with all the bibliographic information necessary for a reader to easily identify and find the source. Read more here as clarified by User:Paul August. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Right, I've mimicked the style of the notes/references in the article you linked. — Dan | Talk 03:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • support but shouldn't the official F1 logo be near the top of the page rather than somewhere in the middle? Borisblue 15:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact it used to be at the top, but someone pointed out that this might appear as though we were using it as a logo for our coverage of the sport, which would be a trademark infringement. I re-inserted a paragraph which used to be under "modern F1" which explains the corporatization of F1 (a very recent phenomenon) and the relevance of the logo at that location. — Dan | Talk 16:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; there seem to be no more troubling issues with this article. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. With this as a featured article, we might be able to court some of the NASCAR dads. Face-smile.svg. One last thought, I agree with Rdsmith on the F1 logo, but it also seems a bit out of place in its current location. Perhaps just moving it above the "safety is a paramont concern" image would make it seem more in place, or moving it to the left side, so as not to have the pictures stacked -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 22:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Because the logo is a very recent development (pioneered by Bernie Ecclestone as a part of his attempt to build the sport a corporate identity several years ago), I placed it in "modern F1" alongside a description of said corporatization. I feel that the image is still most relevant there. — Dan | Talk 23:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for responding, but I'm asking about something else; the placement of the logo below the "Safety" image looks odd, and I thought it might have been better if it was moved to the left side, or perhaps just above the safety image. I read your comment to the user above, and I realize the reason for the placement so low down, but I don't see why it is so oddly stacked. With your approval, I'll move it. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 01:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Some quibbles remain:
    Having been an F1 follower for 15 years, the introductory paragraph to this Wiki is very confusing.
    "Formula One, abbreviated to F1, is a type of Grand Prix motor racing."
    (Grand Prix racing IS F1, there are no other types of Grand Prix. Other classes are GP2, F3, etc).
    "It is regarded as the highest class of single-seat open-wheel formula racing and consists of two annual World Championships, one for drivers and one for constructors (teams)."
    Very confusing, as it implies that there are two annnual parallel run series. It is infact a single series where manufacturers and drivers compete for separate championships. (talk · contribs)
Doctorvee has corrected these. — Dan | Talk 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for the moment - I am a big fan of the sport, but this article just doesn't grip me at the moment.
    • The intro says F1 is also known as Grand Prix Racing - why, then, do they have separate articles?
    • There are quite a lot of very short paragraphs, which give the prose a choppy feel, and some sections are too heavily abridged from main articles.
    • The history from 1950 to 1980, 1980 to 2000, and 2000 to 2005 each have about the same amount of text - a history should give a bit more detail about the early years I think.
    • The description of the evolution of the sport is a bit confusing in places, eg para 2 of 'The early years' talks about how Jack Brabham demonstrated the superiority of mid-engine designs, then says everyone switched to rear engines in 1961.
    • Some things I think are factually wrong - eg Williams, Ferrari and McLaren being described as 'The Big Three': as long as I've been following F1, those three plus Benetton/Renault have been known as 'The Big Four'.
    • The 'Racing and strategy' section doesn't contain any details of strategies.
    • There is some odd phrasing, such as 'A typical circuit usually...'. Worldtraveller 22:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The Grand Prix motor racing article covers Grand Prix racing from the turn of the century until 1950, when the name Formula One was first used and became the more popular of the two. I'll work on addressing the other objections. — Dan | Talk 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Accurate, concise, pics and refs are pesent and all issues seem to be resolved.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)