2007 British Grand Prix was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Repeated uses of full names - eg "Fernando Alonso" many timesY --Childzy(Talk|Images) 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Content black holes
Hamilton faded away quite dramatically after the first pit stop. This needs to be documented and discussed, since for the first time in a while Alonso had his measure, and what is more, beat him quite easily. This is important as it was discussed by the pundits a lot
Media hype about Hamilton. This is needed in more detail because there was a massive frenzy. Details about ticket sales, TV ratings going up and so forth needed in more detail. At the moment it has a short squiz in the lead. You need to have a proper section in the pre-race section.
Too short. Also it is supposed to recap the article. The Hamilton media part is new info which is not expanded on below
The intro needs proper context. We really ought to be trying to write each page assuming zero prior knowledge. So we need to start with "... was a Formula One motor race ...", just to set the scene.
The paragraph relating to "Stepneygate" in the Pre-race section is irrelevant as it had no bearing on this particular event. By all means refer to it as a background concern, in a single sentence containing a link to a full description elsewhere, but the full information does not belong in a race report. Keep focussed.
Similarly, I really don't think we need such a fullsome discursion on the testing session, it really is quite dull and adds nothing of any substance. You might like to point out that Toyota led the times in testing, but performed to their usual standard in the race, that's intriguing, but top teams testing new parts is not news.
Again, the section on Friday practice is worded to sound as though they were competing with each other, which (apart from a minor team or two trying to snatch undeserved headlines on Saturday) they are not. Try and keep focussed on what is significant for the event. Cars spinning in practice is not important, that's why they call it practice. In the words of one former driver "how can you drive at ten 10ths, if you don't know where eleven 10ths is?" However, a car crashing and forcing a driver to use the T-car for the race, or resulting in diver injury is significant, as it has a direct influence on the race.
Actually, I'll cover the rest of the article by expanding on those last two comments. This can be summed up in the observation that the testing and practice sections are three times as long as the quali section! I mean, come on, "home track hero secures pole position in his first F1 season", this section ought to be much better than it is. The whole article suffers from too much reportage (he did that and then he did this, and someone else did the other) which overwhelms the important, interesting information. It just gets lost. Similarly confusing is the complete lack of coherent chronology in the race report. Hamilton rejoins the race in fifth and then his fuel hose jams when he jumps the lollipop. Wrong order. In addition, final placings are discussed as early as the second paragraph, while three paras later you are still reading about people crashing out and suffering failures. It's a mess. Apart from the "content black holes", it just doesn't read well, and doesn't form a coherent acount. Also, there is far too much use of unlinked or unexplained jargon (e.g. short-fuelled; formation lap; one stop strategy). These may sound clear to a motorsport fan, but remember, not everyone reading this may be a fan. At least provide a link, and if there is no link then explain in layman's terms. As things stand, this article just about reaches "B" class, but needs an awful lot more work to reach GA status. Pyrope 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally i think it should be failed for GA, nobody seems to have adressed the issues raised, i fixed some of the prose but you need someone who knows what they are talking about to fix the rest --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and recent race reports are a fairly low priority for an encyclopedia as most are better covered by WikiNews or other news sites. Encyclopedic articles benefit from a bit of perspective! Pyrope 09:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)