Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Canadian Grand Prix/archive1

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 not promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

[edit] 2007 Canadian Grand Prix

Modeled on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix. Already GA. Seems well enough set out. Buc 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Oppose - As the person who has done a lot of work on this article, in my opinion I don't think that the article currently is good enough to reach FA. It just isn't full enough yet. It was good enough to reach GA but I think you can get a lot more out of the topic. Look at 2007 British Grand Prix. There you'll notice I've managed to write a lot more on the subject about a race that wasn't even as interesting as this one. On the other hand I don't know how stringent the criteria is, hence why I don't want to either oppose or support at the current time. T. Moitie [talk] 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Changing to oppose. Blnguyen is right. T. Moitie [talk] 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • British GP looks abouts the same length. Looks good, nominate it if you want. Buc 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Its up for peer review, I want to make sure its top of the range before I nominate. T. Moitie [talk] 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it's still on peer review I'd suggest removing from here so we don't waste reviewers time. While I'm here though, I'll just mention that the results table includes links to Team McLaren, which should be changed to plain McLaren to avoid a redirect. Links to Mercedes-Benz should probably be changed to Mercedes-Benz in motorsport, which is more relevant here. Cheers. 4u1e 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I confused you here, I was talking about the 2007 British Grand Prix in a line of conversation up there. T. Moitie [talk] 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The race report simply is not comprehensive enough. There is no description of how Hamilton built up a lead in the first stint, there is then only a mention of a safety car and Kubica crashing, but it is not mentioned that Kubica's crash immediately after the first safety car caused the second deployment. Also the further safety car deployments need to be mentioned and eplained, and how they mixed up the race situation needs to be explained. There were numerous driver battles that are not mentioned at all, also Trulli and Rosberg doing a synchronised spin isn't mentioned etc etc. Also the race report is shorter than the qualifying and practice which shows why it is not substantial enough. The significance of Hamilton's debut win should be discusssed, and so should the fact that Ferrari did very poorly and that both Massa and Raikkonen conceding a lot of ground in the points race with Raikkonen. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Done to the best of my ability. Buc 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments - Not ready:
    • "The testing started on 17 May at the Paul Ricard circuit" - Such a cold opening. What testing and what has it do to with the GP? It should be something like "At a test session at the Paul Ricard circuit on DATE, with the track set up to replicate... " etc.
    • "Ferrari saw the best of the next 2 days results" - Not good. If have a drag race would I "see" the best result?
    • "Kimi Räikkönen and Felipe Massa released statements to the press saying that they believed that everything will be different in Canada because of the very different conditions " -- Nothing necessarily wrong with having preview quotes, the problem is a lot of teams and drivers say an awful lot of things about the upcoming race(s) - why cherry pick what Ferrari said?
    • " Fernando Alonso leading the push on both of the 2 practices" -- Leading the push - I know what that means but its not encyclopedic langauge. And should be "2 practice sessions".
    • "but Kubica suffered from a fuel leak resulting in no time in the first practice" -- "Resulting in no time" again I know what that means, but strangely worded. Should be "leaving him unable to post a timed lap" etc
    • "the problem came back up" - Not good. "The problem reoccurred" etc. would be better
    • "This resulted in a red flag from 10:33am till 10:50am local time." use of word till not good.
    • Similar general problem to Malaysia GP FAC - description of various teams'/drivers' weekend as "promising" "poor" "strong session" "bad weekend" -- all POV. State where they came/what they achieved and let the reader decide. e.g. "Ralf Schumacher continued his teams run of bad luck" - sounds like we're sympathising. In contrast things like "Consistent with previous form, the Hondas of Barrichello and Button failed to make the cut into the top ten;" is fine - that isn't a judgement.
    • didn't > did not.
    • "He just made it through to Q2" -- (about Coulthard) -- "just" not encyclopedic - if it was close give the margin.
    • "resulting in a red flagged session" - red flag not explained and/or linked.
    • "after which he was pushed down by better times to 19th" -- "outqualified by X drivers" would be better.
    • "Unfortunately for him,"!! Another example of POV (see above)
    • 1st sentence of "Race" section. Way to many "Alonso"s in there. Far too complicated structure and no full stop/period.
    • "and safety car had to be deployed, " - should be a safety car or the safety car.
    • "Trulli witnessed the crash in his rear-view mirrors and lost concentration due to the worry about the Polish driver's condition; due to this, he crashed on the exit of the pitlane after his second stop." -- cite please. Mark83 10:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "Nothing necessarily wrong with having preview quotes, the problem is a lot of teams and drivers say an awful lot of things about the upcoming race(s) - why cherry pick what Ferrari said?" Ok so what do you stuggest?
      • "resulting in a red flagged session" - red flag not explained and/or linked" I've re-phrased it rarther than explained.
      • "Unfortunately for him," Another example of POV (see above)" I don't think this is POV because of the "for him". How can having to make an engine change not be Unfortunate for the driver?
      • "Trulli witnessed the crash in his rear-view mirrors" After some research I've found this to be untrue so I've removed it and added a ref.
      • All other requests have been met. Buc 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • As for my "cherry picking" comment - I suggest either removing the Ferrari quotes or providing a representative sample of other teams' preview quotes. e.g. The Ferrari drivers are obviously talking about their battle with the McLarens, so at the very least you would need their thoughts.
        • Red flag - but it needs to be either explained or linked - this could be the first F1 article someone reads (e.g. if featured on main page) and they will not necessarily know what a red flag means.
        • The article is still not there.
  1. "with the track set up to replicate, set up to replicate the"
  2. Regarding Paul Ricard - it says on the 17 May - and then talks about "previous 2 days" and last 2 days which is confusing. Should be 17-20 May if those were the dates.
  3. "On lap 37, Trulli and Nico Rosberg are battling for position" is a lapse into present tense when the article is in past tense.
  4. "Both spin off the track in almost synchronised fashion touching each other" - they didn't touch.
  5. "This was an amussing occurrence" -- see Wikipedia:Words to avoid
  6. Numerous spelling mistakes in last para.
  7. " BMW Sauber showed good results from Nick Heidfeld" -- similar point as before - you don't "show" a result.
  8. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) regarding times.
  9. "Heidfeld drove very well to take third position, " -- that's POV without a full analysis - did the Ferraris make errors? Did Heidfeld qualify with a heavy fuel load??
  10. As for "unfortunately" - I take your point and WP:WTA agrees, but states "Avoiding the adverb altogether and just stating the fact may be even better:" Mark83 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
All Done Buc 08:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason for 9. is there, but needs a little work. The point was that there had been 5 whole races without a none McLaren or Ferrari driver on the podium and he was the first driver the entire season to achieve a podium and not drive for either team. To extend that point, you could talk about how McLaren and Ferrari have the most competitive cars on the track (not POV, very very verifiable fact). T. Moitie [talk] 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No sorry, I profoundly disagree. Q3 produces skewed results. You cannot say P1 best, P2 a bit worse, P3 a bit worse still. For example consensus on Saturday was the best Q3 lap was Lewis Hamilton's. However Martin Brundle said on race day (and The Times said on Monday) that when fuel was considered, Alonso put in a better qualifying lap than Hamilton. No one can argue that the McLarens and Ferraris are by quite a margin the best cars so far this year, but Heidfeld could have been fuelled significantly lighter to produce a flattering quali position - whereas the Ferrari drivers could have put in much better laps, but the fuel/weight penalty would make the laps look comparatively bad. Mark83 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify - when I say Saturday - I meant the British GP, not the article subject. Mark83 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article still fails 1a in my opinion. I am not a grammatical expert and will admit that I find it hard to distinguish between very good and "brilliant". However I can tell a difference between adequate and very good/brilliant. This is only adequate prose. Now I could keep on highlighting examples, but frankly I have put in quite a bit of effort already. The text needs a thorough review. e.g. "Qualifying saw Hamilton take his first pole position, in a McLaren one-two on the front row.[16] Heidfeld had an improvement drive to take third position, in front of the Ferraris of Räikkönen and Massa." -- "one two on the front row" is redundant - a one-two only can be the front row - a one-two on the second row is a three-four! "Heidfeld had an improvement drive" does not make any sense. Mark83 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.