Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 French Grand Prix/archive1

2008 French Grand Prix

• 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have edited this article as part of Apterygial's Insane Idea userproject. The aim is to get this article to good article status. Fire away!

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Apterygial (talk · contribs)

We really are moving along now! I'll give my usual scattershot review, I won't be very busy for a bit so it shouldn't take as long as last time.

• I'd slam in a few of those pictures in the P+Q section, when you have as many pictures as we have here you might as well use them.
  • I've put in a few more pictures into the P+Q section. Is this what you meant, or were you suggesting moving a couple of the images already in the article into the P+Q section? Darth Newdar (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You got it right. Apterygial 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd seriously consider redlinking Fédération Française du Sport Automobile; it should have a page and when it is created the link will already be there.
• "The conditions on the grid were dry before the race, although the sky was overcast. At the start of the race, weather forecasters were predicting rain near the end of the race." This could be combined for better flow into "The conditions on the grid were dry before the race, although the sky was overcast; weather forecasters were predicting rain near the end of the race."
• The paragraph which explains qualifying was revised again for 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, and got comments at the FAC saying how good it was. You might want to change to that one.
• I've fixed it now, but note that quotes that are indented don't need quotation marks.
• Just run through and make sure refs are after punctuation marks (including commas). I found a couple which weren't.
• That third paragraph in the race section is bigger than Flavio Briatore's ego. I'd split it off somewhere. Apterygial 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can't be that big. It would violate the fundamental physics of the universe. 4u1e (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. Although if it was, it says wonders for Wikipedia's servers. Apterygial 00:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• "In the event, a race was held in 2008, but the race was dropped from the Formula One calendar for 2009." → "Despite this, the race was held in 2008, but the race was dropped from the Formula One calendar for 2009."
• "Renault driver Nelson Piquet, Jr., who was a rookie in 2008, and had endured a tough start to the season, said that he thought that the track suited him and the car much more than at previous races." I'd say he was in his first season rather than that he was a rookie.
  • The word "rookie" is also used in the post-race section; does it need to be changed there too? Darth Newdar (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say so. There's nothing wrong with term "rookie" per se, but when it's just as easy to clarify you may as well do so. Apterygial 00:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Make sure "Drivers' Championship" is always given capitals, it is a little inconsistent as it is.
• "Before the race, Ferrari had been just three points ahead of BMW; after the race, Ferrari moved into a comfortable 17 point advantage." In what?
• Could you add a bit about the different tyres after the sentence about constructors in the Background section (just copy the bit from 2008 Spanish Grand Prix and cite to Autocourse page 171)?
  • While editing, I noticed that ref #3 on the 2008 Spanish Grand Prix is wrong; it links to the results from the Bahrain Grand Prix, not the Spanish Grand Prix. Darth Newdar (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Apterygial 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Change 1-2 to one-two, link to [[List of motorsport terminology#O|one-two]].
• "One of their drivers, Felipe Massa, said that it was important not to discount McLaren and BMW..." you probably don't need to reintroduce Massa.
• Sentences such as "At the previous race in Canada", "On lap 13", and the like (there are a few other examples) need commas after the first noun group (if that makes sense; I did linguistics in first year uni and only got 51%, so I don't really know the technical way of saying it).
  • I changed the two that you have mentioned, but I only found one other example of this; really useless, I know, but where are the others? Darth Newdar (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• "In technical developments, BMW Sauber,[14] Ferrari,[15] McLaren,[16] and Toyota[17] all revised their front wing." Not really sure, but I think that sentence would be better off with the cites together at the end of the sentence.
  • I know it's a slightly unusual way of putting the cites, but I think it looks neater like that (rather than having four cites at the end of one sentence), and it is easier to see which cite relates to which development. Why would having the cites at the end of the sentence be better? Darth Newdar (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I just think it helps flow not to have those big numbers everywhere in the middle of sentence. For me, it's a question of readability versus accessibility. Apterygial 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I have now changed it. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Ferrari's wing changes aimed at improving the performance of the car's nose hole." You may want on expand on what exactly Ferrari were doing with a hole in their car's nose (when it was introduced, for example). It obviously didn't catch on.
• "At the previous race, Red Bull modified their Red Bull RB4's bridge wing to prevent it from flexing, to comply with the latest FIA rule clarifications."
• "The hot weather condition posed several problems for the drivers, many of them sliding through the gravel or across the asphalt." The cars slid through the gravel presumably, not the drivers.
• "On lap 13 Hamilton was given a drive-through penalty for missing the apex of Turn Seven on lap one, and gaining an advantage." He didn't get the penalty because he missed the apex, he got it because he cut the corner.
• "On lap 16, Räikkönen set the fastest lap of the race, stretching his lead over his team-mate." You could add the exact time in.
• "Button, after his pit stop, was lapped by many of the drivers, and retired on lap 17." Due to the damage on the car? I know you elaborate later, but you should have a short bit here as well?
• "The following lap, leader Räikkönen pitted, coming out second, behind his team-mate. Massa pitted the following lap, emerging second, behind Räikkönen." You may disagree, but I reckon the bit about Räikkönen emerging behind Massa is redundant if the position changed straight back the next lap.
• "On the same lap, Kubica pitted from fourth, adventing the next round of pit stops." Don't think "adventing" is a word.
  • Well this is called the insane idea... it's obviously turning me insane :) Darth Newdar (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Red Bull's director said that their problems lay in the bad starts their drivers had made." Christian Horner is notable.
• If you don't mind, I'd like to do a thorough copyedit on the article in a few days' time, as there are a few clumsy sections.
  • Please do. A copyedit did wonders for the German and Turkish Grand Prix articles. Darth Newdar (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. If you disagree with anything I've done, feel free to revert it or ask me why I made the change. Three things: the bit about the cars testing the safety device after one of the practice sessions (I'll be honest here) clearly plagiarised the source article. Take a look at the old version and the autosport article and you'll see. I hope that isn't representative of the rest of the article. Secondly, I think you rely far too much of quotes in the background and post-race sections. You should really be using your own prose to explain things, not relying on the drivers' opinions (see WP:PRIMARY). Third, and there isn't a lot you can do about this now you've written the article, but a more coherent "story" to a race is better than a "blow-by-blow" commentary. The commentaries we use for sources are not ideal templates to write the article, if I could recommend Autocourse I would, the writing there is excellent (the best 25 quid you'll ever spend). One unanswered point about Ferrari's nose hole (nostril?) and we're done. But all round, pretty solid. Good luck at GAN. Apterygial 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the plagiarism; accidental. And no, the rest of the article isn't like that. With the quotes, do you mean that I should explain the quotes in my own words more, or that there are just too many quotes (or even both!). Darth Newdar (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Both really. For me, when you have "After the race, Räikkönen said," and then have a four line quote from him, it's not an objective commentary. There are huge amounts of secondary sources out there that interpret what they say. The other thing is, and I don't know if anyone else thinks this, but I always feel I can predict almost exactly what drivers will say at press conferences before they do (thank the team, few tyre issues but nothing too major, good to get the points, looking ahead to the next round/title fight). Where quotes are useful is where they say something that you want to know, for example the last paragraph of P-r in 1995 Pacific Grand Prix is excellent, because it has DC saying something interesting (he chose to change strategy), and it uses direct quotes sparingly; most of the analysis is done in conventional text. I'm quite proud of the penultimate P-r paragraph in 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix (not to blow my own trumpet) because it summarises that Alonso-Hamilton incident from both perspectives, and only uses two (short) quotes. Anyway, the Ferrari nostril thing? Apterygial 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Right, the Ferrari nose things has been adressed. Thanks for your PR and coypedit. Shall I now take the article to GAN? Darth Newdar (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Yup. Good luck. Apterygial 02:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's it. Apterygial 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Apterygial. Darth Newdar (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)