Jump to content

Talk:2010 Belgian Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2010 Belgian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are OK; the third was an archive at an inappropriate date (before the race had been run), so I replaced it with a later archive. DH85868993 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Belgian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria checking

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    No major problems remaining. Would need to be copyedited to get to FA status but is good enough GA. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    No major problems that I can see.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    It has a references section. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Some of the sources used are better than others, but almost all of the material contained within is supported by the highest quality sources used. If someone has the 2010-2011 edition of Autocourse then this could be used to verify the official title of the race but that is not a significant issue. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    None that I'm aware of.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No obvious edit wars or content disputes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All seems to be in order.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Large number of images, all obviously relevant and coherently captioned. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5

[edit]

Beginning review. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfamiliar with ChicaneF1. Taking good faith that it is a reliable source. Doesn't seem to be being used for especially contentious information so far.
  • I believe I have seen editors show concern in the past about the use of the official F1 website to establish what the official titles of past races were. I don't have the 2010-2011 copy of Autocourse, but if anyone does this would be a better source. Not a significant enough issue to fail the article over however.
  • Taking magazine sources I can't currently access on good faith. Ideally they should be verified at some point by someone who can, especially if this is nominated for featured article status.
  • Unfamiliar with GPUpdate as a source. Doesn't appear to be an obviously unsuitable source and the information that appears in the first citation I've seen largely corresponds with the Autosport citation. If anyone can vouch for or against it's reliability then feel free.
  • I'm unsure that the given citations back up the assertion that the summer break was "unpopular with some teams".

More to follow.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webber quote is sourced appropriately.
  • Vettel quote is sourced appropriately.
  • Hamilton and Button stuff sourced appropriately.
  • Unfamiliar with Auto Evolution. Doesn't appear to be an inappropriate source, but as always outside input is appreciated. Information attributed to source checks out.
  • The sentence reading "Ferrari introduced a new rear wing with less downforce featuring revised endplates and a small flap lacking a slot on the main profile on Felipe Massa's F10 car for qualifying and the race" is a little bit confusing. I'm not sure this much detail is needed for a race article, the detail about the flaps and slots may be better suited for the article about the car.
  • "F-duct" needs to be explained or wikilinked, and calling it "McLaren's F-duct" while talking about Renault's car is a little confusing.

That's it for the background section.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence which ends with "and lightning came on approximately 50 minutes before abating with 20 minutes left" is somewhat unclear and probably needs to be broken up.
  • Unsure how much value there is to listing the whole top ten for practice sessions as they're not competitive sessions. Have there been relevant wikiproject discussion on this?
  • What does "Liuzzi drove onto a white line" mean?
    • Reworded 20:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Autosport seems to be saying that it rained during the final fifteen minutes of FP3, not the final twenty.
  • I presume that ITV meant "marshals" and not "stewards" when talking about who retrieved Vettel's car.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "him being impeded by a slower car" referring to Senna or Yamamoto? The source says Yamamoto was impeded.
  • What is the Oxford Mail? Just flagging sources I'm unfamiliar with in case another editor wants to raise concerns.
  • I'm not entirely sure what "Rosberg lost five places for changing his car's gearbox to an older specification unused for four races pre-qualifying" means.
  • Honestly I have no idea how to cover the old "Alonso given a 15,000,000,000-place grid penalty (meaning he starts from 18th)" issue meaningfully. If anyone else can suggest a clear way of covering this then feel free.

No other notable issues with the Qualifying section.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't understand what "Hamilton held off Kubica on the outside in the braking zone of Les Combes turn and stopped Button passing Kubica" means, even after reading the source.
  • I'm not sure a Motorsport.com article from ten years ago is an appropriate source. One from 2020 would most likely be, but until a few years ago that website wasn't particularly well regarded for reliable reporting.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilton quote is suitably sourced.
  • Webber quote is suitably sourced.
  • Kubica quote is suitably sourced.
  • Vettel quote is suitably sourced.
  • Button quote is suitably sourced.
  • Whitmarsh quote is suitably sourced but it's not clear in the source if Whitmarsh made all of those comments in one go or if they're two separate comments he made.
  • Can't comment on the Horner stuff. Unfamiliar with Auto Motor und Sport and can't read German.
  • Barrichello quote is suitably sourced.
  • Not all of the Alonso quote appears in the linked source.
  • Schumacher quote is suitably sourced.
  • Massa quote is suitably sourced.

Those are my comments for now.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jack Frost (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that at the 2010 Belgian Grand Prix, Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton slid off the wet track into a barrier, but was able to re-join the circuit and win the race? Source: "On that lap, Hamilton was unable to slow enough in the slippery conditions and slid into the gravel trap at Rivage corner. Hamilton made light contact with the wall but had enough traction to get himself out of the gravel and return to the track in the lead." source used in article itself, other supporting citations include these ones, rewatching the race broadcast also shows this is accurate.
  • Comment: Passed GA review on 13 February 2021.

Improved to Good Article status by MWright96 (talk). Nominated by HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) at 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: New enough, long enough. Article is in great shape, well-sourced, and neutrally written. Earwig's copyvio detector only flagged direct quotes which are attributed appropriately; hook is interesting and properly cited. QPQ not needed as nominator has fewer than five credits, so good to go! Great job. Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Belgian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196562102"