Talk:Brabham BT19
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Formula One GA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Brabham BT19 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version). |
|
An entry from Brabham BT19 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 April, 2007. |  |
Review for GA by Johntex
1. It is well written.. In this respect:
(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; Pass
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Good overall but a few concerns lead me to a Minor fail
- I think a few terms like United Kingdom and Australia and South Africa and Ferrari and Maserati could use wikilinking.
- - Done. I have linked to the (currently non-existant) 1966 South African Grand Prix instead of South Africa, as that's the more relevant link (it's just no-one's written the article yet!)4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- V8 is linked twice but not on its first usage.
- - Done.4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- V12 does not seem to be linked.
- - Done 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also (optional) , I would like to see a metric/English conversion on the size of at least one engine (currnetly in liters, convert to CC). And why is this in liters when the weight of the car is in pounds?
- Engine sizes for Formula One, and indeed for all other European racing series, are never, ever, given in Imperial units, even in contemporary reports from the 1960s and earlier. (Edit: Litres is standard in racing usage, cc is rarely used: This period is usually known as the '3 litre formula'). I don't know why litres are the standard, but I suspect it's because the world governing body for motorsport is based in France. Weights in the original sources are given in lbs, though, even though I imagine the weight limit would have been defined in kg. Go figure! I can add non-metric equivalents for engine size, but that raises another question: What units to use? Should it should be British Imperial units (to match with the weights), but for which I can't recall ever seeing anything other than litres used in this country? Should it be American units (for a wider audience)? If the latter, what's the normal usage? Cubic inches? Advice gratefully received. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 3 litres = 183 cubic inches, by the way. 4u1e 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've checked over at WP:MOTOR and the consensus seems to be that, illogical as it may seem, in the UK engine capacity has always been measured in litres, so although at first glance inconsistent, this approach reflects the subject. I've put 183 cubic inches in as a second figure. 4u1e 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 3 litres = 183 cubic inches, by the way. 4u1e 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Engine sizes for Formula One, and indeed for all other European racing series, are never, ever, given in Imperial units, even in contemporary reports from the 1960s and earlier. (Edit: Litres is standard in racing usage, cc is rarely used: This period is usually known as the '3 litre formula'). I don't know why litres are the standard, but I suspect it's because the world governing body for motorsport is based in France. Weights in the original sources are given in lbs, though, even though I imagine the weight limit would have been defined in kg. Go figure! I can add non-metric equivalents for engine size, but that raises another question: What units to use? Should it should be British Imperial units (to match with the weights), but for which I can't recall ever seeing anything other than litres used in this country? Should it be American units (for a wider audience)? If the latter, what's the normal usage? Cubic inches? Advice gratefully received. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- What does it mean that "The suspension was outboard all round," and why was that a "conservative decision"?
- - It means the springs and dampers were mounted in the open airstream between the wheels and the bodywork. Lotus had pioneered the technique of hiding them under the bodywork of the car, reducing drag, but at the expense of an arrangeent that was much more difficult to work with. Tauranac's decision was 'conservative' in that it did not follow the latest trend, but based on wind tunnel data and an engineering trade off that the benefit was small and not worth the inconvenience involved. I'll try and work some of that in! 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done, if you are happy that it's clear now. 4u1e 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- - It means the springs and dampers were mounted in the open airstream between the wheels and the bodywork. Lotus had pioneered the technique of hiding them under the bodywork of the car, reducing drag, but at the expense of an arrangeent that was much more difficult to work with. Tauranac's decision was 'conservative' in that it did not follow the latest trend, but based on wind tunnel data and an engineering trade off that the benefit was small and not worth the inconvenience involved. I'll try and work some of that in! 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- What does it mean that "The rear suspension consisted of a single top link..." - what is a "single top link"?
- -Doesn't have it's own article, I'll try and find a relevant part of another article or create at least a stub for it. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, not quite sure where to put it, it's often used in a racing context, but seems to be such a basic concept that no-one ever bothers to define it. I've left a note at Multi-link suspension, which looks to me like the most natural home for it. 4u1e 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- -Doesn't have it's own article, I'll try and find a relevant part of another article or create at least a stub for it. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pole position - not linked, why is it important?
- - Fastest qualifier for the race and an advantage for the race. Linked and expanded upon. 4u1e 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to sources used; Pass - I don't have easy access to the sources, so I will take your word that they back up the text.
(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; Hold - One question
- In the second paragraph, there is a direct quote "I might as well get on with my main line business, which was selling production cars". There is no footnote immediately after this. Is it supported by Henry (1985) p.55?
- - It is, but I'll copy the footnote to their as well, so that there is no doubt. 4u1e 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(c) contains no original research. - Pass
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic Fail for now because of some concerns/questions
- I don't understand the race results table. I think the key should be placed into this article instead of wikilinked. Also, what are the numbers across the top - are those individual races? How do the points work?
- - Interesting point, because that style of table is standard across the Formula One wikiproject. Numbers across the top are just for convenience in seeing what round of the series has been reached, the actual races are identified by name, linked by abbreviated form in each row. Points at this period went 9-6-4-3-2-1 for first to sixth place. I can make changes to cover these points, but would prefer to discuss them at WP:F1 first, as if agreed they should be reflected across the project. 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why did he call the car "Old Nail"?
- - Because it was old and reliable. You possibly have to be Australian to think that makes sense, but I'll have a stab at explaining it. 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed, with a quote from Ron Tauranac. 4u1e 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- - Because it was old and reliable. You possibly have to be Australian to think that makes sense, but I'll have a stab at explaining it. 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The car completed 19 races and won 6. I'm guessing that is a lot? Could some information be added to help the reader put this into perspective?
- - Winning a third of its races is probably unusual for a given chassis at that time, rather than for a type. It probably could use some perspective, because in the current sport, the figures aren't all that impressive. I'll add something. 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Optional) Any chance for a picture? If an image of the exact car can't be found, possible a related car or drawing of one of the race tracks or something?
- - Can't find any free use pictures of the car itself. A related car would, I think, be misleading. While remembering that images are not a requirement for GA, there are some pictures of it available on Flickr, but with unsuitable licensing. I will try my luck at persuading people to change their licensing to one I can use. Wish me luck! 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good luck with that. As you say, it is not a requirement, so this will not hold up the GA. If you point me to a non-free flickr photo, maybe I could make a drawing of it for you. The trick would be whether I can make it different enough not to infringe upon the photo copyright yet similar enough that it is factual and not original research. Another option would be a picture to illustrate some part, like the suspension style or something. Johntex\talk 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- No response yet from Flickr users. Some pics can be seen here and here, which would give both an overview of the car and a closeup of the suspension. Someone has added a fair use picture of BT19, but I think that will have to go: the car still exists and people are still taking photos of it, so in principle it's possible to get a free use picture. If you are able to do pictures, that would be fantastic, but it also sounds like a lot of work, so don't worry if not! 4u1e 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good luck with that. As you say, it is not a requirement, so this will not hold up the GA. If you point me to a non-free flickr photo, maybe I could make a drawing of it for you. The trick would be whether I can make it different enough not to infringe upon the photo copyright yet similar enough that it is factual and not original research. Another option would be a picture to illustrate some part, like the suspension style or something. Johntex\talk 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- - Can't find any free use pictures of the car itself. A related car would, I think, be misleading. While remembering that images are not a requirement for GA, there are some pictures of it available on Flickr, but with unsuitable licensing. I will try my luck at persuading people to change their licensing to one I can use. Wish me luck! 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(b) stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details - Pass
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. - Pass
5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. - Pass
Overall, it is a very nice article. Thanks for contributing it. Just a few little things and it should pass GA. I'm putting it on hold for now. I've watchlisted this page so I will be back. Johntex\talk 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time (or is it just revenge! ;-)) 4u1e 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is just my way of saying thanks for your helping me - and also a chance to take a break from my current time-consuming project. You are almost there! I'll be back... Johntex\talk 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've just re-read the article. You've done a marvelous job of addressing almost all my issues. There are still a couple of small things like why he chose the "old nail" noniker, but I would not have failed the article is those had been the only issues.
- The one thing I still consider to be a major issue is that table of race results. I really think it needs some more explanation. I appreciate that this needs discussion with the Formula One wikiproject. At a bare minimum, I believe the key should be transcluded into the article instead of forcing the reader to go out and open a second page. When this issue is addressed I believe the article will be GA quality. Johntex\talk 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will raise that at WP:F1 - are you happy to accept the consensus there? I wouldn't want this article to get too out of kilter with the rest of the project (it already differs from the 'standard' in some minor points). I would have got on with it a little quicker but we had another round of the eternal 'Are Scottish drivers British/Are British drivers Scottish' debate last night which took up rather a lot of time :( 4u1e 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Yes, I will go along with what ever the project decides on that. Johntex\talk 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion here and done a dummy of what it might look like here. Feel free to comment. About the points, unfortunately the actual points per race varied fairly regularly from 1950 to around 1960 and a couple more times since 1990. The number of races which counted towards a championship total varied a lot up to around 1990. Between those two factors, I'm not sure it's possible to have a standard points table - it would probably be OK for this article, which only covers two years, but for most drivers and teams there would be at least one change of scoring system to account for over their career, which is too much to put in one article. 4u1e 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Update: What we've agreed is that we'll have a collapsible table, but we're a bit stuck on the technicalities of getting that to work properly. Will report back when it's functioning - hopefully we can extend the 'on-hold' to account for this! 4u1e 3 May 2007, 11:22
- Further update: Still not quite happy with the hide/show key, which can be seen at the discussion link above. Have put in the full key for now. I don't want to stretch the rules any further ;-) , so probably better to either pass or fail in its current state. 4u1e 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Update: What we've agreed is that we'll have a collapsible table, but we're a bit stuck on the technicalities of getting that to work properly. Will report back when it's functioning - hopefully we can extend the 'on-hold' to account for this! 4u1e 3 May 2007, 11:22
- I've started a discussion here and done a dummy of what it might look like here. Feel free to comment. About the points, unfortunately the actual points per race varied fairly regularly from 1950 to around 1960 and a couple more times since 1990. The number of races which counted towards a championship total varied a lot up to around 1990. Between those two factors, I'm not sure it's possible to have a standard points table - it would probably be OK for this article, which only covers two years, but for most drivers and teams there would be at least one change of scoring system to account for over their career, which is too much to put in one article. 4u1e 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Yes, I will go along with what ever the project decides on that. Johntex\talk 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will raise that at WP:F1 - are you happy to accept the consensus there? I wouldn't want this article to get too out of kilter with the rest of the project (it already differs from the 'standard' in some minor points). I would have got on with it a little quicker but we had another round of the eternal 'Are Scottish drivers British/Are British drivers Scottish' debate last night which took up rather a lot of time :( 4u1e 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Since all the requirements seem to have passed, and the table is pretty much a minor concern, I've passed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanuab (talk • contribs) 20:02, May 8, 2007 (UTC)