Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2015 Formula One World Championship/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2016 [1].

2015 Formula One season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a comprehensive report of the 2015 season of the Formula One World Championship. I've helped this article being to GA status recently and through the rather high bar which was set for that promotion, I actually feel this is ready to be a Featured Article. Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MWright96

[edit]
Images
  • All images would be better off with alt text for accessibilty per WP:ALT
General
  • I note that you use a mixture of number and written format when you use numbers. You want to use a consistent from especially with numbers ten or over.
  • Three examples where its problematic:
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a 7-year absence:"
  • "Lewis Hamilton had scored ninety-three points out of a possible one hundred, giving him a twenty-seven point lead"
  • " reducing the gap to Hamilton to forty-two points in the process, but fell out of a point-scoring position in Belgium after a tyre failure on the penultimate lap, dropping him to sixty-seven points behind the leader." MWright96 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the first one, but I really can't see what's problematic about the latter two. They satisfy multiple parts of MOS:NUMERAL
  • Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words.checkY
  • In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated.checkY
  • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures.checkY
  • Additionally the majority of the prose has numbers written out, except those that have to be spelt with numerals according to the MOS. Therefore, spelling those two cases with numerals would make them out of step with the rest of the article. I really can't see your problem here. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Driver changes
  • "They hired the former Caterham driver Will Stevens" - employed
  • "and the 2014 European Formula Three third-place finisher Max Verstappen. Verstappen became" - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • "while Bianchi was in a coma at the start of the season and ultimately died from injuries sustained at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix." - Bianchi should have his full name and wikilink it
Safety innovations
  • Pits should be changed to pit lane for non-Formula One readers
Penalties
  • "and if such a grid place penalty was imposed and the driver's grid position was such that it could not be applied in full," - change grid to start to avoid reptition
  • Wikilink formation lap
Pre-season
  • "Manor Marussia elected to abandon those plans in favor of developing the car for the following season" - favour
Opening rounds
  • "both cars qualified ahead of only the Manor Marussias and eventually retired." - Manor Marussia cars
European and Canadian rounds
  • "Rosberg and Sebastian Vettel did not pit" - make pit stops
  • "with 3 successive 1–2 finishes," I think this is better with three successive first and second finishes
Asian, Russian and American rounds
  • "Vettel capitalised on the results with a third-place and second-place finish, respectively," - This sounds better Vettel captalised on the results with third and second-place finishes respectively
Awards
  • Fix the link for Blanchimont corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Blanchimont
References
  • I was told at my 2007 Coca-Cola 600 FA nomination that the publisher or works where the publisher name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example fn 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) should be omitted
  • I can see that only some of this have been done. e.g. This specially applies to all references by BBC Sport, Formula1.com, The Guardian, Sky Sports. See how I referenced sources in 2014 Japanese Grand Prix
  • It would be easier if you just list the numbers of the refs which need to be fixed. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever. I also don't understand your issue with the Sky Sports ones. The work and publisher have clearly different content. Sky Sports is just a part of British Sky Broadcasting which is active in other area's to. Also I don't see what's wrong with the one Guardian ref. It doesn't use both a work and publisher parameter. Anyway, I'll do the BBC and Formula1 refs. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done the BBC and Formula1 refs and some others. I think I also identified and the fixed the Guardian ref you mentioned.Tvx1 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 28 and 34 should have the work as Sky Sports
  • The publication date for Reference 75 should be spelt as 25 November 2014 for consistency.
  • Also is PlanetF1.com a reliable source?

That's my lot. I may be have a second look if I got the time. MWright96 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96, can you make a status report? Tvx1 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: Overall it looks a little better. My second lot of comments will be up later. Also since it's your first FAC nomination, it would be a good idea to have a look at this mentoring scheme to help you better the chances of this article passing without being failed due to a lack of response. MWright96 (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MWright96 I have fixed some and left some replies. Can you have another look? Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1 I have no more issues I can point out. I would like to hear from other reviewers before I make a vote. MWright96 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support After further review from two other editors I feel confident that this meets the FA criteria. MWright96 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – It's been a while since I last did a review for a Formula One-related article here, so this is good to see. I'll jot down a few thoughts from a reading of the article:

  • First, what is meant to be citing the results and standings tables at the bottom of the article? Tables should be verifiable as well as prose. I'd suggest adding references at the bottom, like the drivers list has.
  • Team changes: "in favour of return to Honda" needs "a" before "return", I'd imagine.
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a being absent for seven years." On the other hand, this "a" should clearly go.
  • Driver changes: "replacing Merhi. Merhi...". Try not to have the name repeat from the ending of one sentence to the start of another, like here.
  • The Brazilian track's diagram caption has "and the redeveloped used from 2015." There should probably be a word before "used".
  • Weight and bodywork: "was increased to 702 kilograms, an increase of...". To reduce prose redundancy, you should probably use another word for "increased", such as "raised". That's really repetitive.
  • Opening round: "Kevin Magnussen failed to reach the grid after suffering an abrupt engine failure during while on his way from the pit lane to the grid." Remove "during" as an unneeded duplication of "while".
  • I have trouble with jargon in sports articles since I'm a sports fan, but even I was confused by "flyover rounds". I can't imagine a non-Formula One fan understanding what that means. In fairness, I'm able to understand much of the rest of the article.
  • European and Canadian rounds: I assume the FIA Pole Trophy goes to the driver with the most pole positions in a season? That could be made clearer here, instead of in the awards section.
  • Awards: If the source allows, we could say what the fastest lap was that got Hamilton that DHL award.
  • The fastest lap is not awarded for a particular fastest lap. It's awarded to the driver who achieved the most fastest laps during a season. In this case, Hamilton secured it at the Singapore Grand Prix through Vettel (and thus Rosberg failing to) posting the fastest lap of the race. Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. regardless I have added a sourced bit on when Hamilton secured the award.Tvx1 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Any particular reason for the citations in the lead? None appear necessary, though you don't have to remove them if you don't want to.
  • Yeah, I was actually surprised that information wasn't in the body. I'll add it to the race report as it's worth mentioning who set out as defending champions.Tvx1 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "secured" or "securing" as a verb five times in the lead alone; twice would be OK but I think you should replace at least three of them.
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after being absent for seven years": might be simpler as "Honda had been absent from the sport for seven years"; and I'd cut "previously" from the following clause.
  • "Lotus ended their association with Renault in favour of a deal with Mercedes. This ended a 20-year involvement of Renault with the Enstone-based team, after being an engine supplier to Benetton since 1995, and being the owner of the team from 2002 to 2010." I don't follow the second sentence -- I assume Lotus is "the Enstone-based team", but why is Benetton mentioned?
No. the Enstone-based team operated as Benetton during the nineties and early 2000's, as Renault from 2002 up to 2011, as Lotus from then until 2015 and since this season once again as Renault. That's why Benetton is mentioned. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it's still confusing to someone who, like me, knows none of the background. I can see it would take quite a bit of inline explanation, but I think it needs to be either cut or explained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniil Kvyat was promoted to Red Bull from Toro Rosso to fill the vacated seat": why is this described as a promotion rather than a move -- aren't these independent teams?
  • While they do operate as separate constructors, they are both owned by Red Bull (Toro Rosso being the literal translation into Italian of that name). Drivers sign their contracts with the Red Bull company. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; I'll strike, but it wouldn't hurt if you explained that at that point in the article, or made Toro Rosso's ownership clear earlier.
  • I don't know what a power unit is; is there a link? Does it just mean "engine"?
  • Yes, I was surprised not to see the term in that article either, especially given the fact that the sport has used it for nearly three years now. I have raised the issue with the F1 Wikiproject.Tvx1 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The change was retroactively applied to Honda": I don't follow this.
  • Honda were allowed en extra power unit without penalty, since they were a new power unit supplier in 2015, even though the rule had only been introduced roughly halfway through the season. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Were Honda the only new supplier that season? How about "This was tweaked after the 2015 British Grand Prix, with new power unit manufacturers being allowed one additional power unit in their first season of competition; this allowance applied only to Honda"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed there was. And there was a part missing. Tvx1 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see your point. How about: "This was tweaked after the 2015 British Grand Prix, with new power unit manufacturers being allowed one additional power unit in their first season of competition; the only manufacturer affected in the 2015 season was Honda, who were allowed to take advantage of the rule even though it had been introduced after the season had begun"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the team's efforts, they were unable to solve the oversight and could not compete in the Grand Prix": I don't think one solves an oversight. I think this could be shortened and joined to the previous sentence with a comma: "in preparation for auction, and the team was unable to compete in the Grand Prix".

Tvx1: Overall this is in good shape, and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ping didn't work. You have to add the ping and sign your post at the same time for it to work. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I knew that; forgot. Thanks for the reminder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1: just a ping to say that there are a couple of minor points still unaddressed above -- the comment about the "Enstone-based" team, and the comment about the power unit rule retroactively applying to Honda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It had slipped from my mind. Tvx1 15:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I didn't see an image-licensing review; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (1 request done)

Comment - please do not use graphical "done" and "not done" templates. These templates may cause problems with FA-processing and -archiving (see FAC instructions). You could use bolded Done text as manual checkmarks though. GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2015_Formula_One_World_Championship/archive1&oldid=1076190894"