Wikipedia:Peer review/2000 Belgian Grand Prix/archive1

2000 Belgian Grand Prix

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have the intention of putting this article up for FAC in the near future. This has recently passed it's GAN and I welcome all comments that will help to improve the quality of this article before I attempt the FAC nomination.

Thanks, Z105space (Talk to me!) 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Zwerg Nase

Here are my thoughts on the article. I will try to move along the lines of the Good article criteria.

1. Well-written: Reasonably well-written, even though some parts were confusing to understand. I fixed one issue in the race section already. One small thing though: In the post-race section you say "After the overtake, Häkkinen went to Michael Schumacher advising him not to repeat a similar manoeuvre." First of all, he certainly didn't say that right after the overtake, but after the race. But more importantly: I believe he did not complain about Schumachers move during the overtake, but to the incident the lap prior! This should be changed accordingly. Also the quote you give at the beginning of the post-race section by Häkkinnen and the one in the quote box are quite similar. Maybe one can be left out.

I will take a look into it. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable: Certainly well referenced, very impressive how many sources you found.

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. It adresses the main aspects of the topic: Yes.

b. it stays focused on the topic: Here is where I have my problems, the article is far too detailed. This makes it hard to read at times. I will give some examples:

Background: The question would be, which information are actually necessary for the reader? The fact that the race was contested by 11 teams is not necessary information, and certainly not which teams. It would have been noteworthy if a team had missed the race, which was not the case. All people reading the article who are familiar with F1 will know where to find the list of competing teams (or look at the result table). Anyone not familiar with F1 will probably not care in such detail. Now about the part where you summarize the point standings. It is standard to describe the situations in both championships in the background-part of a race article. But if you give as many information as you did, what get's lost on the reader is, which of these information are the actually significant ones. Fisichella being fifth on 18 points is not vital information to the point, because he is not, as you later state, a championship contender at that point of the season anymore. Following this line of argument, which best positions the no-longer-contenders Barrichello, Frentzen, Fisichella and R. Schumacher had achieved is beside the point of this race article.

I personally do not believe that the article is too detailed. The fact the event was contested by eleven teams is vital to the reader as it allows he/she to understand how many drivers took part and regardless of the points standings, it is the standard on Formula One race articles include the top five drivers in the Championship at that point of a particular season.

Testing sessions: I see absolutely no reason for this passage to be in this article. Maybe if anything noteworthy would have happened during testing, it might have been interesting to add it to the article 2000 Formula One season, but it certainly has no place here.

I have to differ with this as moving the info to the 2000 Formula One season would cause. Removing the testing information would not help as it helps to explain what the teams did prior to the race weekend. This is also included in articles of similar quality to this one such as the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix and the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying: Here as well I feel that the part is far too detailed. It's like I'm watching the entire session on TV. It is painstaking to read about how "Arrows driver Pedro de la Rosa stopped on circuit" or how "Alesi had a trouble free session and set the twenty-first fastest time, one position ahead of team-mate Nick Heidfeld" because I feel those are all facts that are not significant to main aspects of the article and distract from the main events.

I am not sure about editing this section as I will need another editor's opinion on this section. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race: Why is there information about the warm up session in the race section? I would either suggest a new paragraph or to cut the description alltogether. The only vital information here is the fact that Fisichella crashed but was able to start the race. That can be a small sentence at the beginning of the race paragraph. Also, why do you tell about Fisichella's and Villineuve's accidents in the first paragraph concerned with the warm up, but state the Mazzacane engine troubles one paragraph later?

Cutting the warm-up description altogether will be determinal to the reader. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race: At the end of the race report, you start by saying "At the conclusion of lap 34" and later you write "A few laps later", which leaves the reader not knowing on which lap Häkkinen overtook Schumacher. While it is stated in the lead section, I'd say it's vital that you write it in the race report as well.

This has been amended. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: Overall a clear Yes. I was slightly confused by the sentence "Trulli refused to criticise Button after the race accepting the view that the Williams driver made a mistake and chose not to show his feelings to avoid criticism." I read the source and yes, that is what Trulli said he did, but I feel that following his words here sounds a little wierd. We cannot know for certain which emotions he had so we cannot know which he chose not to show. At least not in such a matter-of-fact way.

Amended the sentence. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: Looks like it.

6. Illustrated: Yup. Good pictures.

Overall, this is a very good race article, but too long in my opinion. With the points I stated, I would have problems granting even GA status, let alone Featured Article. Which does not mean that I want to play down the great work you did, on the contrary, I believe the problem of this article might be that you were too thorough. Keep up the good work! :)

Cheers, Zwerg Nase

P.S.: If you would find the time to participate in my ongoing peer review, that would be absolutely wonderful! :)

Unfortunately Zwerg Nase it is not possible to undergo all of your suggestions as I believe they would deter from the focus of events that occurred during the race weekend, such as altering the info about the warm-up session. Although I have made some changes have been made, I would suggest that an second opinion should be given before I attempt any further changes. Z105space (Talk to me!) 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from QueenCake

There is no problem at all with the level of detail in this article's background section. Our general approach to articles is to assume the reader has no knowledge of the subject and we should be providing enough information, within reason, to ensure readers are not left wanting. That said, I do think you have written too much on the Practice sessions. Most articles limit the overview to one paragraph, incorporating just the fastest times and any major incidents. It's hardly a crime to go into too much information, but it is worth considering that practice isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

A few other suggestions:

1) The fact that the race was almost cancelled is more important than testing and driver contracts - it should probably be above those paragraphs. I would also suggest expanding it, if there is anything more to say.

Done and will try to expand Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) The explanation of the qualifying procedure would read better if you modified the opening sentences. Something along the lines of "Saturday's afternoon qualifying session lasted for an hour. Each driver was limited to twelve laps, with the grid order decided by the drivers fastest laps. During this session, the 107% rule was in effect, which necessitated each driver set a time within 107% of the quickest lap to qualify for the race." might work better.

Reworded. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) It's worth putting the offset to UTC of the race start time.

UTC has been placed in warm-up session start time. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) You've started a lot of sentences in the race report with "On lap X". Consider revising.

Revised these sentences. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) Is Gale Force F1 a reliable source? It's not one that I've come across on Wikipedia before.

According to WP:MOTOR/SOURCES it is, as it was the host of AtlasF1. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) The picture of Hakkinen serves no use being located amongst the tables at the bottom of the page. It'll be better placed in the post-race section.

Picture has been moved. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that's useful! QueenCake (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@QueenCake: The suggestions you have raised have been taken into account. I would suggesting checking to see whether if you are satisfied with my changes. Z105space (Talk to me!) 16:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm happy with all the changes you've made. Fair enough with Gale Force F1, I wasn't aware that it was considered a reliable source. I don't believe you'll have much of a problem taking it to a Featured Article from here. QueenCake (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]