Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Turkish Grand Prix/archive1

2008 Turkish Grand Prix

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was listed as a stub article when I took up the challenge and I would like to know what I should be aiming at and what I should be tryng to get it at the moment. Any comments are welcome. There are no pictures for this race.

Thanks, Chubbennaitor 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the bit about the Borecelona race from the background race as that really isn't needed, this article is about the Turkish GP, not Spanish. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added that because of the Japan article. I'll remove it anyway. Chubbennaitor 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile to briefly mention the result of the previous race, but only insofar as it affected preparations for the Turkish GP. So a sentence along the lines of Ferrari having a slight psychological advantage due to the team's 1-2 finish in the previous race, perhaps worked into the paragraph listing the championship standings, should be sufficient. The previous details that were included in the article such as Alonso's engine failure and Barrichello losing his front wing were too specific to the article on the Spanish GP, and had no real effect on the Turkish GP. The Japanese GP article has more material on the previous race because it was during a more crucial point in the season, when the championship battle was clearly taking shape between Hamilton and Massa.--Diniz (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Diniz (talk · contribs)

The qualifying times don't need to be put in quotation marks. --Diniz (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It makes sense. Chubbennaitor 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The times are not quotations, but data. The quotation marks are unnecessary and, when repeated across the article, take up space which puts a strain on the server that doesn't need to exist. In addition, none of the other WP:F1 articles put times in quotation marks, and I've never seen another source do it either.--Diniz (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some time for a more detailed review now, and I think the article could do with some significant improvements:

Get someone to copyedit the article for spelling, grammar and wording. From the lead section alone, there are such examples (proposed corrections in bold) as:

This was also Rubens Barrichello's 257th Grand Prix start, breaking the previous record of 256 Grand Prix starts set by Riccardo Patrese.

Kimi Räikkönen was leading the Drivers' Championship gong into the race yet started in fourth immediately behind, eventual World Champion, Lewis Hamilton, who was faster in qualifying by 0.013 seconds. ~~respectively~~.

At the first corner Räikkönen clipped Kovalainen's rear tyre and gave him a puncture, ruining Kovalainen's race. [The meaning of the sentence as it is currently worded is also unclear - how was Kovalainen's race ruined? It should be qualified by the fact that he could only finish twelfth as a result, and did not score any points.]

At present, there are numerous examples of sentences that are not clear in their meaning or that are poorly worded. For example:

This was Massa's third consecutive win and pole at Turkey, winning and taking pole in 2006, 2007 and now 2008. The second part of this sentence is redundant.

Super Aguri has competed in F1 since 2006. Implies that the team are still competing; should be had instead of has.

Fisichella later claimed this was because of Sébastien Bourdais changing direction twice before the first corner, leaving him with very little option. Option to do what?

Identical links don't need to be repeated in the same section. For example, both Ferrari and McLaren are linked multiple times in the lead section alone.
As mentioned above, lap times don't need to be put in quotation marks.
There is no information on the practice sessions, save that Fisichella ran a red light and received a grid penalty during one of them.
As I believe Apterygial as mentioned elsewhere, the article could do with more references, and/or more precise use of existing references. At the moment there are large chunks of text which do not seem to be sourced, even if they are in fact covered by one of the existing references.
There is no post-race section.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but to be honest the article is nowhere near GA standard at the moment and needs these improvements to be carried out before it should be considered for nomination.--Diniz (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "lead section" is the first section of the article [1] ;) --Diniz (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on to a copyeditor.
I'll get on to it.
I'll get onto it
I'll remove them
No more refs to be found. Most of the refs cover the whole section.
Haven't completed the post-race section - still trying to find refs.

I only want it off Stub class. Where should I go first. Chubbennaitor 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's much better than stub class now, if that's what you would like to know.--Diniz (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Apterygial (talk · contribs)

The article needs a lot of work, to be brutally honest, before we can have a realistic shot at GA. Could I ask you to respond to each of my points below that point (i.e. Aa Bb Cc, rather than ABC abc), as the system you've adopted above with Diniz is beyond confusing. I'm going to begin by repeating my points at WT:MII, bar the one about the Notes section.

In my experience, one reference at the end of each paragraph is not acceptable at FA or GA level, and this is for several reasons. Firstly, if anyone inserts more information into any of the paragraphs, using a different ref, your ref is now orphaned, and much of what it covered would look uncited. Second, many reviewers are looking for diversity of sources. If they see one source used for a big chunk of text then their first thought will be copyvio. F1 has hundreds of sources that you can use for anything; if I was doing this article these sources would be invaluable: [2] (and all the subpages, especially race incidents), [3] (there is a lot here), [4] (rely on this for what happened, and race incidents for when), [5] and [6]. Don't look at all of them and tell me there's no sources. :)

The lead is far too long. The second paragraph doesn't really make a lot of sense, and some of the rest is a bit of history lesson, and the lead is not the place for that.

Obviously you need to add some stuff about practice and post-race, those sources I offered have heaps.

I'll say it before AlexJ does: excessive use of times (in the qualifying section) is pointless and confusing. You really only need to offer the pole time.

Copy the paragraph on qualifying times from the Japan race report.

Qualifying should be told from first position to 20th, not from first session to last. This is the standard adopted by D.M.N. for his 1995 articles, and me for the 2008 articles. As I said to Darth Newdar, "How you go in Q1 doesn't matter, so long as you make Q2." This section needs a re-write.

In the background section, you need some kind of idea about the attitude of the championship frontrunners heading into the race. By all all means, give a short recount of the previous race, but only do so when it relates to this race. For example, for Japan I had FM's quote about Singapore and how everything could change quickly, and that was related to the race. I had the paragraph about Alonso because otherwise his victory in Japan would have had no background. Ferrari had dominated the last few races up until Turkey, and I for one thought that they were going to run away with both Championships. Try to get that sense into there.

I really just skimmed over the article, and there are many more problems that I didn't get to. Please don't try to justify the article to me, think about how you will justify the problems to the reviewer. If you get a reviewer who knows what they're doing, and I always hope I do, then they will call you on a lot of this stuff, certainly the ref density. You may think it isn't needed, but it is. Let me know if you have any questions. Aptery gial 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by AlexJ (talk · contribs)

By no means a comprehensive review, but here's some of the major issues to get started on:

The Super Aguri withdrawal is mentioned in two separate paragraphs in the Background section. My suggestion would be to remove it from the opening paragraph where the teams are introduced.

The changes to the quali. system should just be in the quali section, no need to mention it briefly in Background as well.

There are times everywhere! I think it was Stephen Hawking that once said for every equation in a book, you lose half the audience. I believe something similar happens when you put in times. If I desperately wanted to know the times, there's a table down the bottom I can check. I don't mind seeing pole time and fastest lap to thousandth-second accuracy, but leave the others out if you want to hold a reader's interest.

Redo the qualifying description to go from Q3>Q1 (i.e. Pole>20th). This I believe is the consensus established following a few runs at FAC/GAN and comments received there. See the 'quality' (GA/FA) 2008 race reports for an idea of how this is done.

Be careful with using nationality to describe drivers. Try and think of someone who's not into F1 you know, and think if they'd know that fact before you make the assumption.

Try and get an idea of the standard phrases used in these kinds of articles. It's a little bit like painting-by-numbers - stuff like how the finish of a race is described can be lifted from a quality article and just have the names changed. These snippets have been through numerous assessments and have been tweaked to be as clear as possible.

Sources wise, I believe F1Fanatic.com is not considered a reliable source.

Copyedit will be required at some stage, but wait until the major content issues are resolved first. No point getting a copyedit and then rewriting half the article.

Citations at the end of a sentence go directly after the full stop/period not before it.

Feel free to ask questions about any of the above points. AlexJ (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think Chubbennaitor has plans to further expand the article on the base that he removed himself from here. D.M.N. (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]