Talk:Maurício Gugelmin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Maurício Gugelmin has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 11, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
January 8, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
December 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article


I'm busy looking the article over for Good Article Review. Everything looks to be pretty good, but I'd the prose to be fixed up just a bit 9a little more compelling), and I'd like some technical jargon wikilinked. I'm leading towards makign it a good article though. --Wizardman 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. This one is currently not following that, yet the prose is improving. I don't really link the year-to-year flow where the paragraphs end up being two sentences. Basically the main part that's holding this article back. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. This article is. 3. It is broad in its coverage. This article is. 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. The main parts that someone would say could be POV are all properly referenced, so this isn't a problem. 5. It is stable. This article is. 6. 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. This article does. So 5 out of 6 is pretty good. I don't want to just deny it but the writing could use some work. I could try helping with that myself over the next couple days. It's a good length as well, maybe a bit of expansion on 1999 would help (no mention of his activities then). --Wizardman 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, I did fail it for two main reasons: no references in lead (easy to fix) and weak prose and structure (harder to fix). This could certainly be a GA in the future, so don't be discouraged. (This was my first GAR, for all I know I may have been harsher than others, so feel free to try again in the future. --Wizardman 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Refs in the lead are not a requirement, a common point of view (including on some Featured articles) is that since everything in the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, the refs are not needed, or at their most useful, there. 4u1e 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
A certain amount of 'year to year' is, I think, inevitable in any sporting article - it's the natural rythym of the topic if you like. I'm having a shot at the writing as well - I don't see any problems with the actual writing itself (spelling/grammar) so I assume it's more structure and flow? Grateful if you could continue to comment on changes to see if it's more what you have in mind. Cheers. 4u1e 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It's somewhat heartening to see people helping to get "my article" up to scratch. Thanks for all the help so far. I agree re: refs in the lead; Damon Hill is a good example of that. Readro 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Just a suggestion - probably the whole F1 career can go under one heading. Logically Leyton House belongs more with March anyway, which would leave Jordan on its own as a subheading, so why not just go for one? 4u1e 16:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. I tried to do a year-by-year account of his career, but found there was just not enough material from some parts of his career, particularly his Jordan and early IndyCar years. I've also merged the Champ Car bit into one section for the same reasons. Readro 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thought that might be it! 4u1e 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This actually does look a lot better. If you guys want to nominate it as a GA again I'd probably support it. (Looking at some of the articles for delisting that are being kept this one should have no problem) --Wizardman 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to have another look. I'll re-list it and see what happens. Cheers. 4u1e 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, it's a GA now. My only slight problem is what LOOKS to be a lack of content (I emphasize looks since you probably stretched the bio out far more than I at first assumed. Keep improving it with whatever info you can find though. --Wizardman 17:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mid importance?[edit]

I've changed the importance for Mauricio from mid to low. Although I was quite keen on him as a driver, he didn't really make it in F1 and only won a handful of races in Indycar. I suggest that his importance, in the context of motorsport as a whole, is only 'low'. Cheers. 4u1e 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside F1/CART[edit]

Been trying to dig up some information to flesh out the bits that have been flagged up for the GA reassessment. Post retirement, I found this article [1]. Now I don't speak Portuguese, but I think I understand "participação de ex-pilotos de F1 como Raul Boesel e Maurício Gugelmin" under the Renault Super Megane Cup section. I'll keep you guys posted on what else I can find. AlexJ (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the sections I was looking for, but I found this quote in a '92 Sunday Times article: "Ironically it is Mauricio Gugelmin, the unfancied Brazilian who was taken on solely because of the money he brought to the team, who has been saving some honour for Jordan-Yamaha and its sponsors." - the article makes no mention of Gugelmin being a pay-driver. AlexJ (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Some more bits that could be used for a post-retirement section: Gugelmin "is now focused on building his family's businesses in his homeland. "My brother (Alceu) does the work and I make the money," Mauricio joked." [2]. Moved back to Curitiba, Brazil and put his Florida mansion up for sale [3]. AlexJ (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mauricio Gugelmin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is OK, maybe a 6/10.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
Personal life and early life coverage is very poor, as is information on his life post-retirement. This has to be expanded for this article to be at GA standard.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Don't forget that, like many sportsmen, available sources will be heavily biased towards his competitive career, and within his career they are biased towards his F1 and Indycar days. There is likely little more encyclopedic to say about his personal, early or post-racing life. If we've missed a reliable source that provides more detail on these areas, then fair enough, but we can only cover that which is available in reliable sources. 4u1e (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and now a post-retirement section has been added I am OK to pass this as a GA. However, personal information about sports stars is always an important part of any biographical article and lack of sources will not be an excuse at FA or A-class and as standards rise at GA may not be enough there either in the future. I strongly recommend that strenuous efforts are made to locate more information on these topics.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
No-one's making excuses: if the sources don't exist (as opposed to being hard to find) then there is nothing to be done, at FA, A or GA. 4u1e (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Passed, good work to the creator of that post-retirement section (although I think there is a problem with your cite web template). --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. AlexJ (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maurício Gugelmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)