Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 United States Grand Prix/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 2005 United States Grand Prix

I have nominated this as a GA candidate but I also think this meets the FA criteria because it has some good information and sources. Kingjamie 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Object. For starters, the citations need to be done correctly using one of the preferred formats (see WP:FOOT). Also, why would you use the British spelling of tire (tyre) for an article about an event that took place in American? Although that is a minor issue.--NMajdan•talk 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: English vs US spelling - it's not a hard rule, but the bulk of the F1 articles use UK English because the sport is largely European and most of the teams (Even 'French' ones like Renault F1 or 'Austrian' ones like Red Bull Racing) are based in the UK. For example Bernie Ecclestone and Martin Brundle, whose conversation is quoted at (excessive?) length are both English, as is Max Mosley, the head of the sport's governing body. (Sorry - that was me, earlier today! 4u1e 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

• Object citations need to be fixed and the Martin Brundle's grid interview with Bernie Ecclestone is likely copyrighted, if not it should be in wikisource, not there. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object - I want to support this, as it's by and large a comprehensive and well-written article on one of the most significant events ever to hit one of the world's most popular sports, but a few things need sorting. Obviously the citations need sorting out, and that Brundle section trimming (I don't think there's a "copyright" problem as such, since it's a televised interview, but I do think it's too long and the length of the header makes the contents table ugly). In addition, there's no real explanation early in the article about what turn 13 is - mention should be made of its unique (in F1) status as a banked corner being the apparent cause of the problem. I think it needs a thorough copyedit too, as I've seen a few sloppy examples of parentheses and punctuation use. I'm also not sure what the rules are about being nominated for Good and Featured status at the same time, so I'd suggest withdrawing it from one or the other (although I would like to see it become an FA at some point). Seb Patrick 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I also agree that "tyre" is the correct version of the word to use - it's always been the standard in F1-related media, the majority of which are European. The fact that this particular race happened to be in the US is irrelevant, not least because - despite the venue - there was barely any American-related involvement in the event itself (teams, drivers etc.)! Seb Patrick 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Jeronimo 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from the inline citations (already mentioned above), the article needs more citing. A lot of the content is only from second-hand information ("according to Stoddart"), and we need to know which statement comes from who or which publication. It is also unclear if these accounts (mostly from Stoddart) are supported by other sources or not.
  • Some of the text needs to be rewritten, they currently appear to be added and written when the event was still ongoing (especially "The FIA's reaction"). Using a somewhat more summarizing style would be more readable here.
  • The interview should be removed - primary sources do not belong in an article. Furthermore, it doesn't add very much that isn't already discussed.
  • The "Refusal of coverage" section should be expanded or merged in other sections. I do not see any reason to pick out TSN's reaction in particular.
  • The contents of the "Notes" section should be moved into the article.
  • I miss any references to the 2006 edition, while there was talk about "The future of F1 in America?"
  • The quote by Sam Posey seems unnecessary in this article, and it is unclear why his reaction (as an EX-racer and EX-commentator) is relevant at all.
  • Not all persons are properly introduced, most notably Paul Stoddart - a wikilink is not enough, give his function/role/job.