Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jochen Rindt/archive1

Add links
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2016 [1].

Jochen Rindt

[edit]
Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jochen Rindt, Formula One's only posthumous World Champion, winning the Championship in 1970 by accumulating enough points before being killed in an accident during practice for the 1970 Italian Grand Prix. As a World Champion, his article ranks as high importance in its respective WikiProject.

This is the first article I nominate for FA, so even though I made sure to follow all the regulations, I might have missed this or that, so feel free to point anything out to me. Also, this is the first time I added alt-texts to images, so they might not be completely appropriate. Any critique is welcome! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro: Overall, this looks quite good from a first glance. I don't think we're quite there yet. I think the prose needs a little polish to reach FA standard. From the lead to begin with: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he became the only driver to posthumously win the Formula One World Drivers' Championship, after being killed in practice for the Italian Grand Prix": I think this might be better in terms of emphasis as "he was killed during practice for the Italian Grand Prix and became the only driver to be posthumously awarded the Formula One World Drivers' Championship."
  • "Rindt started motor racing in 1961, switching to single-seaters in 1963, earning success in both Formula Junior and Formula Two.": Maybe better as "Rindt started motor racing in 1961 and switched to single-seaters in 1963. He was successful in both Formula Junior and Formula Two."
  • "After mixed success with the team": Maybe "mixed results" as success can't really be mixed.
  • "It was at Lotus where Rindt found a competitive car, although he was often concerned about the security of the notoriously unreliable Lotus vehicles": A bit too much going on here. Also, the meaning of "security" in this sense does not really work. What about: "The Lotus car was more competitive but suffered from reliability problems"
Hmm, I feel like there should be some mention of the security aspect, since "reliability" could just mean that his engine failed here and there. But we are talking crashing and potentially, and in the end actually, dying. I'll try to come up with something fitting.
  • I think we need at least another sentence in the lead about the accident, for example saying what happened. Otherwise, we just have that he was posthumous World Champion in the first paragraph, and a passing mention of the fatal accident in 1970.
  • "In the years leading up to his fatal accident": A bit vague. What about simply "In the late 1960s"? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for your helpful comments! I'll tackle the changes tomorrow. Just left one reply above for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have we made any progress on this? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Sorry for the delay, I've been terribly busy this past week. I have now made several changes to the lead along the lines of your comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The lead is looking good now. I'll take a look at the rest of the article in the next couple of days. Overall, it looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: I've done some copy-editing and shuffling of the information. As ever, feel free to revert my copyediting if I've messed up, or if you don't like it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The young Rindt has been described by his brother and friends as a "laddish child", often performing tricks for his friends": I'm not sure this adds a lot about him that wouldn't apply to anyone. The phrasing is also a little uncomfortable, but there is no easy way to rephrase, so I wonder if this part is best cut?
I included it to give the entire paragraph, which covers his tendency for reckless behavior, a little more insight. Without this sentence to start out the paragraph, the rest of the information would stand a little isolated.
  • "he broke his femoral neck": Can we link something here? On first reading, I thought it was a weird typo and that he had broken his neck; I suspect several non-medical people may make the same mistake without a link.
Done.
  • "he had collected eight recorded misdoings with the police": Maybe I'm being a little slow, but misdoings does not sound right. Misdemeanours sounds more like it, but maybe its an Austrian expression?
That was my attempt to translate the German word Vergehen. But yes, misdemeanour is better.
  • "he received his first car, a Volkswagen Beetle, through his parents' spice mill company in Mainz": A spice mill and a Beetle don't obviously suggest a link; how did he get the car through the mill? Sponsorship? A gift?
Well, in the source, that's how it was phrased: "He got the car through the mill". I am suspecting that, since he was the technical owner, the mill provided him with a company car, even though he was not really involved in the mill itself. Writing "company car" in the article might be a stretch though, since it is not phrased as clear as that in the source I used.
  • "In the same year, Rindt's idol, the German Wolfgang von Trips, died in an accident": This is the first we hear of von Trips as his idol. I would expect to see this in the part where his interest in motor racing grew; there is a possibility that it is a throwaway comment in that Guardian article. Is it mentioned anywhere else? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find another source that says it, so I removed that sentences.

@Sarastro1: Thanks for your c/eing and the additional comments. I'll try to work them in as soon as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I added comments above and made some changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that it was Eagleash who added the source to the car from the spice mill statement, replacing one of mine from the documentary movie. @Eagleash: Could you look into the Henry book and check if it specifies this statement? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase The book refers to him inheriting an elderly VW. It doesn't definitely specify that it came via his inheritance from his parents business or elsewhere. I don't clearly recall adding the ref. but my intention would be to verify that he started with the VW. There is a diff here with a ref that you added but I cannot find what happened to that ref afterwards. It does not seem to be in the current version. It's possible that I may have removed it by mistake when adding the Henry reference... my apologies if that's the case. Eagleash (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash: This is the diff when you added the Henry ref back in January. I have now tweaked the sentence a little bit so that it fits into what you wrote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: Thanks. Oh dear! Looks like I did delete the earlier ref. Sorry about that. I don't know what that (earlier) ref of yours contained, but should it be restored? Your edit added the spice mill info...does your ref bear that out also? Eagleash (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash: No worries, I have now added the older ref to the sentence before to have that covered. The Henry ref should be enough for the car sentence as it stands now, right? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My only worry now is that if we remove the reference to the mill, the sentence loses its purpose somewhat, as I don't think it's particularly interesting or notable what his first was. If we restore "inherited", it begs the question of from whom it was inherited. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • "Rindt drove his first race at the Flugplatzrennen in 1961, in an Abarth Simca 2000. After missing the official application period, he only entered after prominent intervention from a friend from Graz.": This ambushes the reader a bit. How did he get into the race? Was he with a team, or on his own? Did he just turn up? How did he get the car to drive? The rest of the section suggests it was his, but where did it come from? What do we mean by "prominent intervention"? Why was his friend so influential?I think this bit needs a little work.
Did my best to make this clearer with what the source gave me.
  • "almost all the races he entered": I think it would be good to give a number of races he entered here, rather than just "almost all".
Here, I do not really know any numbers. "Almost all" is the term used in the movie by Giesser. Should I just take out the last half-sentence?
  • How did he actually get into Formula Two? We are a little vague, just saying that he entered with Barry.
Well, once more, that is pretty much all I have there. Barry was a relatively successful driver, having raced F2 before, so he took Rindt along. There is not really more I can say about this unfortunately. Everything there is to say I pointed out in the paragraph above: Barry was wealthy and had cars that he could provide to Rindt.
Done.

@Sarastro1: Again, thanks for your comments! These are gonna be a little tough. Mostly, they are vague because the sources are vague... I'll try to make clearer what I can tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I made some changes and commented above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look fine. I think we would be better removing "almost all the races he entered". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And even more: Up to the end of the Cooper/Brabham section now. I did more copyediting, but feel free to revert. Looking good, hope to finish in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sharing the drive of a Ferrari 250LM with American Masten Gregory for the North American Racing Team, Rindt won the event": I appreciate that "sharing the drive" is accurate at Le Mans, but I wonder would the simpler "driving with" work better?
"Sharing a drive" is what is usually used in this context. "Driving with" makes it sounds as if both would be in the car at the same time.
  • I wonder would a more chronological approach work better for Le Mans? It is a little disconcerting to read of his 1965 win and then read about his 1964 debut.
Done.
Done.

@Sarastro1: Once again, thank you for your comments! I hope we can get through the rest of the article quickly :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Sorry for the delay, real life has been rather manic. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if the 1960-70 section could be split? It is intimidatingly long and I think would stand splitting into 1969 and 1970.
I've split these up now.
  • "straw balls": Can we just say barriers? This sounds a little odd.
Changed this into "straw barriers".
  • "a broken lower wishbone": Is there anything we can link to here?
Linked.
  • "after anti-dive and anti-squat had been removed": Too much for the general reader I think. My preference would be to replace this with "after modifications had been made" but at least we should link to something. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed this.

Provisional Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: I've copy-edited this quite heavily, and so I'd like more eyes on this before I switch to full support. However, I think it's pretty much there, although it might stand a little more tightening in places. This is a pretty impressive piece of work, and the nominator deserves commendation for their research and for their patience with my rather slow review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for all your work! I have made the last changes you suggested.
Now that it's had a looking over from others, I think I can switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Bcschneider53: I notice that in the Formula One World Championship results table, each individual blank cell is divided if there wasn't a race to fit those cells, while in the Non-championship results table, the blank cells are all merged together. I'd suggest consistency one way or the other; I personally prefer the merged cells (which is what's done in the NASCAR tables) but I know most of the F1 tables keep the cells divided, so I won't make a strong case for either one, but I would suggest one or the other in both tables, not both in one of the tables each. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: You are of course absolutely correct. I have changed the F2 table accordingly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support So I see you have chosen the divided format, which is fine. The prose looks to be in much better shape and there are citations throughout. I'll happily support the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96

[edit]
  • "Although his grandfather choose" - choosed
  • Use |spell=in on the template for 4 centimetres (1.6 in) to comply with MOS:NUMBERS
Done.
  • "he got a moped and started racing his friends on motocross tracks." - try brought
  • "who finished four minutes ahead of second placed Hill." - second-placed for consistency
  • "he set pole position in the second session - recorded the pole position lap
  • "The more powerful flat-12 Ferraris" - Ferrari cars
  • "Rindt's team mate' John Miles" - change to teammate like you have done on the word's two previous mentions

Overall, its a good work and is not far off the FA criteria. I would have to agree with Sasastro1's view that a copy-edit is in order. MWright96 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few of these as I think they're actually my mistakes. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only one thing seemed to be still outstanding, done it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks in better shape than when I last saw it. I have no shame in lending my support. MWright96 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

The article is in excellent shape. I copyedited a little; please revert anything I screwed up. A couple of minor points:

  • The fake brake lights story is entertaining; was that illegal at the time? Would it be now?
Unfortunately, the source did not specify that.
  • What does "costumer franchise" mean?
I added a wikilink here, although the target article is in pretty bad shape unfortunately.
  • "went straight ahead into the straw balls": should this be "straw bales"?
Done.
I guess that was a mistranslation from the German "Strohballen".Tvx1 00:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drifted through the streets": this is (I assume) the specialized meaning of "drift", which some readers won't know, so I would suggest linking this or adding an explanatory note.
Added a wikilink.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments, I have addressed them as best I could. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. It would be helpful if you could add a note at the target article saying that the term "costumer franchise" is also used, but that's not necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: "Costumer franchise" is actually just one part of what is described in the target article. Lotus itself was a privateer team, a costumer franchise such as Rob Walker's purchased chassis from other teams instead of building their own, so it is a very specific form. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you don't mean "customer franchise"? Tvx1 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: I do of course. Funny how no one noticed this so far :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Has anyone completed image and source reviews? If not, Zwerg, you can make requests at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • In the bibliography, we need to be consistent in including a publishing location (or not, but my preference is always to include the location)
@Sarastro1: To clarify: Do you mean just the bibliography part? For newspapers, I have always been told in my studies that these are cited without locations, but I do not know if conventions for that are different on Wikipedia. As for the two movie sources, I am also unsure wether adding a location there is necessary, considering that unlike books movies do not usually give you a publishing location. I will however definitely add locations to all the cited books. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography now contains locations. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Newspapers don't need a location I don't think, though some reviewers might prefer one. To me, it's a waste of time. There is still one book, only mentioned in the references, and not in the bibliography, with no location: Der große Preis von Deutschland. Alle Rennen seit 1926. Otherwise OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 60, Motor Sport should be italicised.
Done.

Sources look reliable and are otherwise formatted consistently. Spot checks not done. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jochen_Rindt/archive1&oldid=756247015"