Talk:2010 German Grand Prix

Ferrari & Stewards

Not sure if I can get the link working for the reference. If you go to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Pages/on_event.aspx (before it vanishes and is replaced with next weekend's Hungarian GP stuff), it's Document 48. - JVG (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, did just open for me from the link posted here. Reference format prob needs work though. - JVG (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Team orders at the 2010 German Grand Prix with 2010 German Grand Prix

I don't think there is any need to merge this article with the 2010 German Grand Prix. Because it's too much information to go there and the event is big enough to have it's own article. For example there is an article called the Death of Ayrton Senna instead of being in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix obviously this isn't that big but still to beg to merge with 2010 German GP Wiki id2(talk) 08:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you can't really compare the death of Ayrton Senna to this incident.--Sporti (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing the race up as we speak. The team orders incident will be included as a matter of course. But I have to ask: after the "Valenciagate scandal" article and now this, who the hell thinks it's a bright idea to start a page for every minor controversy? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I already said that you can't compare it to the death of Ayrton Senna Sporti your comment is pointless. You can right the race up but don't merge until decision is reached. Valenciagate wasn't a big scandal with just a safety car issue. But in this scandal is using of a team order. Hasn't been used to modify the result for eight years. I'm sorry this is a big controversy.

What I suggest you do is create a section in the 2010 German Grand Prix but at the top of that section write "main article: Team orders at 2010 German Grand Prix" that is a logical solution Wiki id2(talk) 09:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the line of "minimum requirement for an article" cuts somewhere between this and tha local difficulty with Nelson Piquet Jr back along, as it had much wider implications. A paragraph on 2010 German GP is fine unless the World Council do something really significant. That goes for Valenciagate (in the relevant GP article) as well. Try not to pad it out with the detail you have been adding to it so far. We are really still not Autosport. Britmax (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Autosport isn't correct reason. I'm sorry but people on wikipedia have a right to know information. It's a standard place where people come. I created a seperate aritcle rather than adding it onto Alonso's already large controversy section. People have the right to know. A few kilobytes will not be that bad provided that people gain more knowledge for it. The decision has been reffered to the world motorsport council so just leave it as it is. If the WMC decide no action is taken we will dissolve this article if action is taken we will add more detail Wiki id2(talk) 10:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you think the information can't go in the race article? Why will it be easier for readers to find it at a different article with a made-up name? 4u1e (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait until the WMC decide what they are going to do. After that, it will be much clearer whether or not there should be a separate article. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ABSOLUETLY - no need for two different articles—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - it's not notable enough for two articles, can be placed in post race section on the GP page. This isn't as significant as Crashgate so no need for two articles. Lewis lying at Aussie GP doesn't have separate article, this is similar size incident. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge now If there's really enough fallout later on to fill more than about 50kb of article, then maybe split off a daughter article at that time. Why is it useful to have this stuff away from the race article? Saying we should keep the article until we know whether there is a reason to keep it is back to front thinking. 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge now Even if the WMC do something, it still won't deserve its own article. Are we going to have separate articles for every instance of team orders in F1? There'd be literally hundreds. Nowhere near as significant as the Singapore-Piquet thing, and no way does it merit an article of its own. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge now As per Britmax, 4u1e and Bretonbanquet. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge. Where is the Team orders at the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix article?--Midgrid(talk) 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Or the 1998 Australian Grand Prix? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge now per the arguments presented above. DH85868993 (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge now Foozle55 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 German Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, complies with key MoS elements.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced to reliable sources, no evidence of OR. Spotchecks show that online sources support statements, assumme good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Excellent coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Suitable images, licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Please understand that I don't just quick pass these (if that's what it looks like), I do take my time reading through your articles and they are flawless. Truly impressive work. JAGUAR  16:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)