Talk:2001 Austrian Grand Prix
 | 2001 Austrian Grand Prix has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 14, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2001 Austrian Grand Prix article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from 2001 Austrian Grand Prix appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 May 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Ferrari team orders similar to 2002?
[edit]Someone amended Formula One to add details of an incident in 2001 similar to the famous Ferrari 'team orders' fiasco in 2002. The words added were as follows:
In the Austrian Grand Prix in 2001, Rubens Barrichello, Schumacher's teammate at Ferrari who was 2nd in the race, was ordered by Ferrari to allow Schumacher to overtake him under "team orders". Barrichello let him pass on the last lap at the finish line. But this was further uproar to come at the same track the following year when the same situation happened, only this time, it was for the lead of the race. And not only did Barrichello slow down to let Schumacher through, the world champion made his embarrased team-made stand on the top-step of the podium which caused outrage with the supporters at the circuit and around the world. As a direct consequence of this controversial race, the FIA banned any further use of team orders in the new rules and regulations and fined the Ferrari team $1million for their actions. It was Ferrari all the way
If this is accurate, we could mention the 2001 incident here. I haven't checked the accuracy of the statement, though. I've deleted it from the main F1 article as being too much detail for an article which is already over long and slightly incidental. 4u1e 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
[edit]This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 Austrian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Urbanoc (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I'll start reviewing this article to celebrate the new F1 championship. I'll be leaving suggestions/inquiries from tomorrow, if everything goes to plan. After I end reviewing it, I'll put the article on hold for up to seven days to allow the nominator to address any concerns.
- I had some problems, let's see if I can start the review today/tomorrow. In any case, there's little chance the F1 will srart this weekend, it seems. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the article just needs a couple of minor edits max. I could make them myself per WP:BOLD, but I'll leave the nominator do it, that way he can give feedback on the points if he sees it relevant. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, let's begin. I'll divide my review into two main sections: General comments and Specific comments. I recommend you to wait until I put the article on hold before making changes, as I'll be slowly introducing suggestions and questions.
General comments
[edit]Prose and MoS
[edit]Mostly OK with guidelines. I'll be leaving some minor nitpicking in the Specific comments section.
References layout
[edit]It seems OK for the GA criteria.
Original research and reliable sources
[edit]The article doesn't seem to have original research, as the claims are backed by the sources given (at least most of them, as I checked). Sources themselves, on the other hand, seemed in a first scrutine the weakest point of the otherwise very solid article content, some being somewhat of a lesser quality. Very few, but they are there. However, after consideration and contrasting against policy, my opinion is that they are reliable enough as backing for the claims being made. The potentially contentious claims are backed by sources widely regarded as reputable, as Autosport.
Broadness and focus
[edit]The article covers most details of the race, without being overkill.
Neutral
[edit]No significant bias as far as I see. All opinions are attributed in text.
Stable
[edit]It doesn't seem to be a heavily edited article, and most of the later edits are by you. There's no aparent content dispute.
Images
[edit]No problems there. Although, I wonder if there's a better picture of Schumacher you can use. If you have reasons to use that particular one, ignore this comment.
Overall
[edit]A quite good article, without any relevant flaw. At this point, I have no doubts it will pass.
Specific comments
[edit]Race section
[edit]Verstappen then bettered his own fastest lap to a 1-minute and 13.282 seconds on the following lap as he passed Coulthard for fifth.
Why the hyphen? The rest of the article doesn't seem to use it. Is there a special reason? If not, I recommend to remove it.
An attempt by Barrichello to pass his teammate Michael Schumacher on lap six almost resulted in at the Remus Kurve turn.
I strongly suggest to add "contact" after "in".
- @Urbanoc: Thanks for the review. I have made the changes suggested above and have done some supplementary edits to the article. MWright96 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- MWright96, I checked your extra changes. I think they slightly improve the article, so no more from me. If anything, they make me feel more comfortable passing it. Excellent work! --Urbanoc (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)