Jump to content

Talk:2014 Brazilian Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qualifying[edit]

The rules will undoubtedly be the same as last week's 18 car event. Would we agree until the FIA says otherwise? Twirlypen (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until it's announced/confirmed. It will only be a couple of days at the most. DH85868993 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New pits section photo[edit]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/interlagos-2014-pit-entry-2.jpg shows a nice shot of the new pit entry. Provided it doesn't violate any copywrite laws, would it be suitable to use in this and/or the Interlagos article? I'm thinking a before and after shot would be helpful. Twirlypen (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good photo, and would be ideal, however I can't really see a way around copyrights easily. SAS1998Talk 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying session[edit]

I missed the entire session completely (it's my birthday, so I've been imbibing all weekend), but did the FIA change the 4+4 elimination procedure they used at the USGP? The table suggests a 5+3.. if it stayed 4+4, did Kvyat set a time in Q2? If Kvyat didn't set a time and it was 5+3, we ought to note this in the article. Twirlypen (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It stayed at 4+4 but Kvyat didn't go out in Q2. I've added "no time" for him in Q2 to indicate this. DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lap times[edit]

Anyone else notice that the lap times for this race were consistently and significantly quicker than the V8s of previous years? I know that the track was resurfaced and they used a softer tyre, but Nico's Q3 time was only one or two tenths off the all time lap record a decade ago when Ferrari had a 900hp V10. Twirlypen (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Brazilian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to finish this review asap. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Here are the issues I have encountered:

Lead:

Background

Practice and Qualifying

  • "Hamilton was second fastest and locked his tyres" makes it sound like one is caused by the other.
  • Third paragraph: As far as I remember, 2015 already had the rule that the Q3 drivers needed to use their tyres used in Q2. This should be clarified.
    •  Done
  • I cannot find the information about the fuel pressure in Massa's car in the source given. Also, the phrasing is weird, I have never heard the phrase "fuel pressure getting into a car".

Race

Post-race

So much from me. Thank you for your great work thus far! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I can pass this review. Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]