Talk:2015 Monaco Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Techtri (talk · contribs) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Were there two or three practice sessions? Near the start it mentions "the first of two free practice sessions" and then later talks about "The third practice on Saturday morning". You might need to explain what Q2 and Q3 are at their first appearance, or better still word it in a way that doesn't use these jargon terms. Also, these are not actionable for a Good Article, but I wanted to mention that the the background section is quite 'choppy' thanks to the headers splitting everything up into one or two paragraph sentences, and that normally each driver and team name would be wikilinked only at the first occurrence, not every time (WP:REPEATLINK).

As for the practice sessions: I added a general sentence at the beginning which should make it a lot clearer. As for Q2 and Q3, I feel that since I have introduced how the abbreviations work when I wrote The first part (Q1), it should be understandable that what Q2 and 3 are. I tried to make the background section less choppy by removing the subsection headers and fuse the track infos into one paragraph. As for the repeat links... This always breaks my heart because I feel that WP:REPEATLINK does not really apply to how people read a WP-article. Let's say someone goes to the article and only reads the race report (which probably a lot of people will do), then they will have to search the entire article for a Wikilink. I therefore have the habit of wikilinking something every time it appears for the first time in each section. But I concur, I cannot bend the rules however I please, so I'll look through it, while maintaining my stand that my way is better ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated links are taken care of.Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background section looks much better now. Could you also have a look at the line "which many commentators[30][31]" at the start of the post-race section. "Many commentators" is 'weasely', particularly when both references are about the same quote given by the team principal rather than a commentator. Are you able to name (and reference) some other commentators who had this view like you've done with Coulthard? Techtri (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, there has been debate about this on the talk page. Most people in the project seemed satisfied with the solution I found, but I can see how it might meet WP:WEASEL. I would answer that while both sources refer to the same quote by Wolff, they make the statement that it cost Hamilton the victory on their own account. Keith Collantine from F1Fanatic can definitely be called a commentator. Since there is no author given at PlanetF1, I changed that source to one from The Guardian, where Paul Weaver, another acknoledged F1 commentator, says the same. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we drop the "many", and just report the people that gave the opinion? [1]? Techtri (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Zwerg Nase (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No other major objections in this area, changing to a pass. Techtri (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
These practice and qualifying paragraphs are thin on references, and features plenty of statements like "impressive", "disappointing", "surprised the paddock", "prominent", "successful" and "disappointing" which would seem to be opinions that need referencing and/or rewording/toning down to make them sound more factual. Generally, I'd consider F1Fanatic and Planet F1 to be a bit borderline when it comes to being considered reliable sources, and this article relies quite heavily on them at the moment.

I rephrased or sourced the objectionable statements. As for F1Fanatic, its use as a reliable source has been discussed several times within the Project, coming to the conclusion that we can consider it to be reliable (see here and here). There have been no discussions about PlanetF1, but I'd apply the same rules here, none of the information I find here and backcheck with reliable sources elsewhere have been proven to be unreliable, so I use it whenever it runs an article I need. Same applies to Autosport (I now added some links from them), which is also generally considered reliable within the Project. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those links, but my reading of them didn't exactly leave me convinced that F1Fanatic is considered reliable - the first has three people commenting, two who say use it if you really can't find an alternative and one who reckons it's OK. The second has six comments, two people who reckons it's OK and four who advise against it. If you've verified it against other reliable sources, why not just use those as the sources for the article? Also on the subject of references, could you check the source used for the pitlane speed limit in the background section - it appears to relate to the 2013 event. Techtri (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sourcing issues I've noticed - "The second Williams of Felipe Massa completed a disappointing Saturday for the English squad" is backed up by a source that makes no mention of disappointment. In the post-race section the sentence "Indeed, almost half the field pitted when the safety car was deployed, just as Hamilton did." is backed up by a reference which states that more than half the teams took the opportunity to pit one of their cars which isn't the same thing. Techtri (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About f1Fanatic: What those posts state is that they like to use F1Fanatic when they find something there that autosport.com does not post or if they want to have a broader base for their references. To me, I personally prefer F1Fanatic over autosport, especially when it comes to the practice and qualifying reports, because you can find no page on the internet that has more detailed reports than them. What I said about PlanetF1 was not that I had checked this particular information against other sources, but rather that having checked their information against other sources in general, I found them to be just as reliable. Concerning the pit speed limit, I added two new sources that should cover it. I changed the wording of Williams' qualifying to "problematic", which suits better to the source given. I also changed the sentence about the number of teams pitting under the safety car.Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with F1Fanatic is that it self-describes as a blog written primarily by one contributor ([2]) - WP:BLOGS states "self-published media, such as...personal or group blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources.". By comparison, Autosport is a magazine that has been published by a reputable publisher since 1950, with professional staff and contributors. Techtri (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largely not acceptable does not mean generally not acceptable. In the context of the Formula One Project, the blog is generally accepted, as is proven by its use in other GAs, such as 2012 Formula One season. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that it doesn't mean unacceptable in all cases, but it does shift the burden of proof to the person claiming they it is acceptable. The GA review of 2012 Formula One season shows the reviewer there had concerns regarding F1Fanatic's reliability; it appears the review was left on hold for three weeks largely because of this issue, it didn't get addressed, and then the article got passed with a note advising to use other sources in future. A GA review that questioned the source and accepted in good faith without any proof of reliability, and two WikiProject discussions with no clear consensus reached isn't proof. I see you've added other sources alongside, but the GA criteria is "all in-line citations are from reliable sources", so if read literally, it would still be a problem. I guess I'm going to change it to a pass it as it's a minor issue given the article appears fully sourced from other sites, but in case this article is used in future as 'proof' that this site is acceptable, I'll state here that I haven't considered it as such during this review. Techtri (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having found more suitable sources, I replaced all references to PlanetF1 with ones to sources that are definitely considered reliable. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The background section misses out any detail on the state of play coming into the race (who's leading the championship, how have previous races gone etc.). How long did each practice session last? How long did each of the three parts of qualifying last? Post-race what effect did this race have on the championship?

Added the respective information. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, to my knowledge it looks to cover all the major aspects now. Changing this to a Pass. Techtri (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

EDIT: Apologies for missing this first time round, but I believe the article would fail (1b) also, as the lead doesn't meet the MoS criteria. At present, the lead primarily covers material that isn't in the article body itself (championship standings for example), and it isn't really a concise summary of the major points of the remainder of the article - there's no mention of anything that took place in the race for example. Techtri (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the lead, moving background information into the background part and adding a sentence about the major incident in the race. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The pit lane speed limit reference is from when the World Motor Sport Council ratified the reduction in speed following the 2013 German Grand Prix pit lane incident involving Mark Webber. The ratification wasn't temporary and doesn't change season-to-season unless otherwise specified at subsequent WMSC meetings. It should stand as a credible source for the content specified. Twirlypen (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Can you also chip in your opinion on F1Fanatic as a reliable source? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rule change in 2013 wouldn't necessarily apply to a 2015 race, that source alone didn't rule out a subsequent rule change, but I'm happy now that it cites that source for the reasoning and the other source to confirm it's still in place as of 2015. Techtri (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the reviewer has a point on that one. While we largely accept it in the community/project as most of the news coming from there does hold water, in the end it is a blog, and if we are to improve the quality of the article in terms of a legitimate, encyclopediac manner, then F1Fanatic should be backed up by more credible sources. I'm not saying they should be replaced entirely, only backed up if challenged in a review, such as the case here. Twirlypen (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, I don't see that the reviewer is challenging the content of the source, just its bare nature. And the fact remains: F1Fanatic is, in my opinion, the best source for practice reports since they are the most detailed I find. So if I pull them away, the article's quality is going to suffer. I guess that's what you call a dilemma... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which was why I said back them up with something else, not replace them entirely. Twirlypen (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did so. @Techtri: is everything in order now? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'm an idiot.. putting the Austrian GP practice reports in the Monaco article. I'll fix that right away... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really leave it on hold any longer, so with only a very minor remaining objection, I'll update to a pass. See under the referencing section for my 'disclaimer' in doing so regarding F1Fanatic as a reliable source. Techtri (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I will try to use other sources in the future, whenever possible. Thank you again for your thorough work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]