Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Chinese Grand Prix/archive1

2008 Chinese Grand Prix

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Continuing with my 2008 race report articles, I present this fairly pedestrian race. After a recent (long) FAC for 2008 Japanese Grand Prix I have slightly adjusted my writing style for the "race" section, and I would like some feedback on that. Also, whether I've given the right amount of weight to Massa's pass on Räikkönen. Basic grammar points and all the usual stuff are also very welcome. Thanks in advance for the comments, Aptery gial 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ's PR

Background

(i) "With ten points on offer for the winner of the Grand Prix, it was possible that Hamilton would win the Championship in Shanghai." - Extremely picky technicality - the championship would be clinched, not won. A winner is only crowned at the end of the season.

Makes sense. Changed. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ii) "He was later given a penalty, which dropped him far enough down the field that he was unable to recover to a pointscoring position." - Better as "..given a penalty, which dropped him down the field from where he was unable to recover to a PSP"?

Yep. Simpler. Changed. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practice and qualifying

(iii) "Bourdais spun off at turn two late in the session, beached the car in the gravel, and abandoned." - "and abandoned it." or actually, it would still make sense as "Bourdais spun off at turn two late in the session and beached his car in the gravel"

I guess it's obvious he would have abandoned the car if he beached it. Changed. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race

(iv) "Bourdais dropped back to 18th; Trulli pitted at the next opportunity and retired after the second lap.[23]" Spell out that Trulli's pitstop/retirement was damage related? Might not be necessary...it's up to you.

Changed to "Trulli pitted at the next opportunity as a result of the damage and retired after the second lap." Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(v) "No-one was moving as fast as Hamilton, though, as he set new fastest laps on laps three, six and eight, to extend his lead over Räikkönen to more than four seconds." - Hmmm... this jumps out at me as sounding more news report than encyclopedia article. But then I know one of the Japan FAC comments compared the prose to GrandPrix.com and mentioned how Saward's work was a better read, so I can understand why you've opted to jazz it up a little. I'll sit on the fence for this one, and see how others read it.

I was waiting for this. I have changed it to a less jazzy "However, Hamilton was the quickest on track,". By the way, do we know for sure it is Saward who writes those pieces? They don't have any author information, and while I think it's pretty obvious it would be good to know for sure. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(vi) "This trend continued until lap 10 when Räikkönen fought back with new fastest lap of 1:36.664." - WRT fastest laps, I'd say only the final fastest lap time of a race should be given. Times given to thousanth-second accuracy potentially scare off readers if their usage is too widespread. In addition, the point that KR set that particular laptime is totally irrelevant in this context, and hence it's inclusion is distracting. Even the fact he set the fastest lap is pretty irrelevant. The key detail that needs to be got across is that he was faster than LH.

Sure. Changed to "This trend continued until lap 10 when Räikkönen fought back and closed the gap." Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(vii) "Things went from bad to worse for Kovalainen when he suffered a puncture on lap 35." - I let you get away with (v), but this one's got to be go :p

Damn. My plan to systematically introduce emotionally driven POV into Wikipedia foiled at the earliest opportunity. Removed offensive section of sentence. Kovy didn't have a good day, though. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(viii) "The McLaren limped around the track back to the pit lane on the disintegrating tyre, rejoining in 17th." - "rejoining in 17th after a replacement (was fitted)"

No biggie. Changed. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ix) "The gap between the Ferraris began to close, by lap 48 it stood at just one second.[23] Massa eased past Räikkönen on the back straight on lap 49, to take second place on the track.[24]" - Is L48 detail needed? could be compressed to "The gap between the Ferraris began to close, and Massa eased past Räikkönen on the back straight on lap 49, to take second place on the track."

Even less emphasis! Seems OK, so changed. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(x) "Meanwhile, Kovalainen parked his car in the McLaren garage and retired," - "and retired from the race,".

Oh no, didn't you hear? Heikki was so depressed about China that he retired from racing after the Grand Prix. The Brazil GP was contested by his identical twin, Mikhail. Changed anyway, for clarity's sake. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-race

Nothing! I can't see what else there is to say about the FM/KR thing - the FIA did nothing, and no-one (teams/media) had any problem with that.

As ever fire away with any response questions. AlexJ (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I didn't have a problem with any of your points, they all seem to be quite valid. Thanks for the help here, and for always being the first to give your review. Aptery gial 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]