Jump to content

Talk:McLaren MCL35/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Oldest outstanding nomination, eh? Don't really get why, but I'll review it now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect it was because of the length and the lack of GA reviewers with an interest in F1, but thank you for taking it on. I'm currently in the midst of university exams but I will address your comments whenever I have time this week. Exams finish next Thursday so I will be free after that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[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:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  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:
    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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  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:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General notes

[edit]
  • Extremely thorough referencing — well done. References appear to be from generally reliable sources.
    • However, numerous citations have url-status CS1 maintenance errors.
      • Please have a look at citations 9, 10, 21, 25, 30, 34/5, 122/3, 124, 129, 130, 132, 209, 216/7, 221/2, 226/7, 263, 272/3, 277, 280-285, 287-301, 303-312, 314-348, 350/1, and 353:2021.
    • Random citation spot-check:
      • 16 good
      • 88 good
      • 104 good
      • 106 good
      • 143 good
      • 156 good
      • 267 good
      • 286 good
      • Sampling is all fine.
  • I have corrected some small instances of American spelling in the text.
  • Copyvio 24.8%, so plagiarism unlikely.
  • Mostly follows MOS, and prose is mostly clear. Exceptions of lesser quality will be highlighted below.
    • Most of these problems involve a superfluity of drivers' names, when pronouns and subclauses would be preferable.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & infobox

[edit]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  • "the pace deficit to the top three teams which at that point was still over a second" — again, be definite. Which teams were they, and was the one-second-loss in qualifying or the race, or both?
    • Since this section is on development rather than competition I've again changed it to "leading teams" – they're introduced properly later on. THe loss was in both so I've labelled it "overall pace deficit" which is hopefully clear enough. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can relink and put the full names of everyone featured in the lead. Lead and main body are treated separately.
  • "the MCL35 had a greater emphasis on the outwash effect" — a car can't emphasise anything, presumably it was built with a greater emphasis.
  • Do you think incorporating the 2021 livery section into the main livery section would work?
    • No, since that would break the chronology of the article. This background section is really dedicated to the original MCL35 and its contextual information. I've changed § Initial design and development to § Original design and development but if that isn't clear enough I'm open to suggestions. Possibly I could split § Competition and development history into two sections, one for the original car and one for the updated spec, and then merge the current § Background into the MCL35 section. 5225C (talk • contributions)

MCL35: 2020 season

[edit]

Pre-season

[edit]

Opening rounds and double-header events

[edit]
  • "Norris qualified fourth and was promoted to third after a penalty was given to Lewis Hamilton, while Sainz qualified eighth. This was McLaren's best grid start since the 2016 Austrian Grand Prix." Firstly, what was the best grid start? Norris only, or both teammates together, or both? Secondly, try to join the sentences.
  • "On the final lap"
  • The constant 'at the [insert Grand Prix]]...Norris had this position in the WDC, Sainz had this position' is a little too WP:PROSELINE for my liking. Try to vary the writing a little. To be clear, it's not something that could fail this GAN, but it's something to look out for. I could copyedit it, if you wish.
  • "Both drivers referenced tyre management as their main challenge as Norris and Sainz finished..." --> "after they finished..."
  • "McLaren was overtaken by Ferrari in the WCC and left the round in fourth place, two points behind Ferrari." Clunky. Also, the second Ferrari is linked but the first isn't.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining European rounds

[edit]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing rounds

[edit]

Assessment and characteristics section looks good. Will address the rest of the review tomorrow, but I think I can put it on hold for the moment. @5225C:, please do not respond after the below line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General remaining points

[edit]

MCL35M: 2021 season

[edit]
  • Sections are a little weird - goes straight from two = signs to four. Also, is the 2021 season heading necessary?

Development from the MCL35 to the MCL35M

[edit]
  • Last four paragraphs are quite short, and could be combined in various combinations.
    • I've combined the first three but left the fourth independent since it's a change that received coverage independent of the others and was a one of the more notable aspects of the MLC35M. I hope that's acceptable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the restrictions imposed by the FIA's token system for 2021 development, most of the aerodynamic changes for the MCL35M were introduced in the 2021 season." as opposed to being introduced when exactly?
  • " the team can effectively run" tense

Liveries

[edit]

Pre-season

[edit]

Opening rounds

[edit]

European races

[edit]

Rest is good, albeit methodical. I would probably say that the article, after corrections, will meet FAC standard in every criteria aside 1a) — engaging and professional prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]