[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mikhail Kapirulin

[edit]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the picture of Ecclestone, Putin and Kapirulin is being used to highlight the relationship between the sport and the Kremlin in light of the controversy over Russia's actions in eastern Ukraine, and their alleged involvement in the shooting down of flight MH17. Although Kapirulin appears in the picture, he plays no role in the controversy. Ideally, the article would use a picture without him, but none are available. The reader does not need to know who Kapirulin is in order to understand the article, and indeed, including him in the caption is an unnecessary complication. But his presence should be explained, and so he has been included in a footnote. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The thing with the other guy in the foreground of photo is a reasonable questions to ask "Who is the other guy?" "Why government office-holder is on the background only?" "Who has signed document?" "What is the document?" As we can see on photo, that man signed agreements with Bernie, not background president. Mikhail Kapirulin is the head of the company that is building the F1 race track in Sochi. [1] And no reason to remove (from description) a person who signing the document on the photo. Footnotes alongside with reference link is bad choice for newbie readers, for example. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that picture was not chosen because of Kapirulin. It was chosen to show something else, and he happened to be there. Describing him despite the way he has nothing to do with the issue the image is addressing is an added, unnecessary complication. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you must say about all key people on the photo, not about two of three only. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote does explain who he is. It just doesn't confuse or complicate things by inserting that explanation into the middle of a sentence that it's not related to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Bianchi in article lead

[edit]

Please be aware that the article lead should be used only for key issues related to the race: the details of what, where and when; an historical context to the race; and a summary of the race itself. Bianchi's absence is a tragedy, but it does not affect the ability of the race to be run, and so it is not an appropriate inclusion in the article lead. Especially when all it is doing is simply creating a redundancy. Prisonermonkeys (talk)•

The article lead is the introduction - the who, what, where, when, how and why. It is not the article itself. Bianchi's absence does not affect the ability of the race to be run, or its outcome, which is the focus of the lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not right. Driver changes (briefly in lead) is very important information for stage. It's a first stage with 21 car only in the season. All drivers are with stikers about Bianchi, and you can say it's a not important info? 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying its importance. I just think that the current lead over-emphasises the issue. The article lead is the summary of the article. The details of the circumstances behind Bianchi's absence are too specific for the lead - they're better-suited to the body of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bianchi is leadworthy, a short note at least. And body of the article must have detailed description of the situation with him. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46, I'd appreciate it if you didn't copy and paste bits of my statements to use in your arguments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my English is very bad. And your cited statement is correct. But say about topic, not about editors here, please. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen what is currently there (00:34 UTC, 01:34 BST) and I believe it says all that is necessary, though it could do with a slight rewording. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grid placings re: Maldonado

[edit]

We have both main-body text and a footnote stating that Maldonado started 20th because Chilton's grid penalty was imposed later. However the qualifying results table we have gives Maldonado eventually starting 21st behind Chilton, as does the BBC website here. - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear Maldonado got a gearbox penalty as well. He qualified 20th, got demoted to 21st for the Suzuka carry-over, re-promoted to 20th with Chilton's penalty, and re-demoted with his own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

[edit]

If you are going to include attendance figures, please make sure that the source is accurate. I have had to undo several edits because although the source given is reliable, it a) does not quote a specific figure, just "a capacity crowd"; and b) it discusses the attendance for the Saturday of the event, not the Sunday, which is when the race was held. The title of the article makes that pretty clear. So, @Haken arizona: please read the articles you intend to use as sources more carefully. We cannot use a source describing the events of Saturday to refer to the events of Sunday. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian source claims 65,000 in attendance on Sunday. You say capacity is 55,000 so that is not possible. Capacity does not include "paddock" that can fit 10,000. It is safe to say that event was sold out so to say 55.000 on sunday is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can't assume. You need a source that quotes a specific number.
Secondly, and most importantly, you need a source for the correct day. The attendance field relates to the attendance for the race. However, the source you are using gives the figures for qualifying. You are effectively presenting figures for one day and claiming that they are figures for another day, which is misrepresentation.
Now, you have two choices:
1) You can continue ignoring the problems with your source and keep on edit-warring, at which point you will be referred to WP:ANI/3RR.
Or
2) You can stop what you are doing and you can find a reliable, verifiable source that gives a specific attendance figure for Sunday.
I am more than happy for you to choose either option. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Haken arizona: your new source is better as it refers to Sunday and the race, but it is not specific enough. How near to capacity is "near capacity"? It's effectively WP:WEASEL since it's so open to interpretation. If you insist on adding attendance figures, then please be specific. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Journalist will not be there counting every person to give you exact number. 55,000 is the number ok. Now if I was to edit the "post race" section and add that attendance was up to capacity, you would edit that too and argue that is not the place to put it there like you did with german GP. You are totally out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the journalist is not giving an exact number, why are you using it as a reference in support of an exact number? Near enough is not good enough. Now, you have been informed that your edits are not appropriate several times, and the reasons for this have again been explained to you several times. If you continue to edit like this, you will be referred to administrators. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer me to administrators, my source is reliable and accurate. You are out of line. Administrators will strike you down again like they did last time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is reliable. But it is not specific. How near to capacity is "near capacity"? The article does not say. And by your own admission, the reporter did not sit there and count the people in attendance, so how is it verifiable? You're so intent on adding attendance figures that you haven't even been able to answer these questions.
And don't presume to know what the admins will do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

call them in. I stand firm and my source is accurate. You are out of line and ego maniac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you wish for. You have been reported as you have willingly ignored users pointing out issues with your edits. Rather than seek out an alternative source, you have refused to address the issues with the original source and have instead insisted that they satisfy all conditions and have edit-warred. This constitutes vandalism, and gence your referral to WP:ANI/3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like administration ruled against Prisonermonkeys and gave you 48 hour ban on editing. You are way out of line. Be sure I will edit the attendance data to the page and report you as a vandal if you try to touch it. Haken arizona — Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't. An admin protected the page, which is an alternative to blocking both of you. Prisonermonkeys is not blocked. You can't edit it because it's protected. Sort it out here before the page is unprotected. Being so disruptive that a page has to be protected is hardly a badge to wear with pride. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look up Prisonermonkeys talk page. It says he is being blocked for 48 hours and there are other warnings there also. He has a habit of just deleting people's hard work. Haken arizona — Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not blocked. You're either looking at an old block or someone else's page. Please refrain from criticising other editors and concentrate on a compromise to your problem with this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He has a habit of just deleting people's hard work."'
No, he has a habit of deleting content that is not supported by sources. It is not good enough to edit in content for the Sunday attendance figures and use a source published the day before to support it. How can that source possibly know what the Sunday figures were?
Likewise, you edit in a source that clearly does not know what the attendance figures were. Answer me this: how near to capacity is "near capacity"? If you don't know, how can you make any claim about it? There are 55,000 fixed seats at the circuit—and a general admissions area that can hold up to 10,000.
Why is it so important that we include attendance figures? More to the point, why is it so important that we include attendance figures that we have to break Wikipedia policies of reliability and verifiability in order to do so?
Despite what you might think, I am not opposed to including attendance figures. I am, however, opposed to including any content based on sources that we can demonstrate to be incorrect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, be careful of making arguments that fall under WP:ILIKEIT and WP:PLEASEDONT. Sure, you put hard work into finding those sources and learning the markup needed to incorporate that content—but that is no reason to keep it. It doesn't matter how much effort you put into it if your sources are faulty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

use the processes in: WP:DR, take it to WP:RS/N, get a WP:3O, I will do just that for all future disagreements with Prisonermonkeys.

@Haken arizona: Look at the above where I discuss the problems with the source. For example, the way the attendance field in the article is for the race on Sunday, but the source that was given (from the ABC) was written on Saturday. Don't you think that's a bit of a problem? How can someone writing a news story on a Saturday know what will happen the next day? It's an obvious problem that makes that particular source unusable in this case, and any other editor who saw it would have removed it. The need to have attendance figures is not so great that we can willingly ignore a source that we know is wrong.
Now, you can address those issues on article talk pages. That's what they are here for. Demonstrate that the source you are using is appropriate. But you cannot sit on an article reverting edits that you don't like and wait for the admins to get involved. I think you might want to take a look at WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE and understand what is required of sources before you continue editing them in. And if somebody raises issues with the use of those sources, you need to demonstrate that those sources are valid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prisonermonkeys: My first edit was correct, source: http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/753976 . Then you edited that arguing attendance can't be more than the capacity of 55,000, but capacity is 55,000 seats plus 10,000 general admission area, that means 65,000 spectators. Tass Russian agency is reliable source for me, but you can always argue that is Putin's propaganda or what not. If you watched the race you would see that all the seats are filled up and I would not doubt the source's number of 65,000. Haken arizona
I did watch the race, and there were visible gaps in the stands. Small ones, perhaps, but visible nonetheless and certainly not a capacity crowd. Beware of self-published sources. The organisers only report how many tickets were sold, not how many people attended. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Prisonermonkeys please stop ignoring sources, ignore Haken arizona's rude behavior and focus on the content. Source clearly quote a specific number. Your argument is invalid, because 10,000 was simply make up by general admission area above seating capacity. Also "near to seating capacity" are pretty proper data for Wiki, its just rounded number that could be used before someone come up with more accurate numbers, anyway i do not think that we will ever know exact number of every spectator visited. Both sources are reliable, so please stop simply deleting content, or find more accurate one. Thank you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't know the actual seating capacity—because, as you say, the extra 10,000 is made up by the organisers—then how can we trust any figures they provide? Furthermore, how near to capacity is "near capacity"? The need for attendance data is not so great that anything will do there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not said seating capacity, it is 55,000, i meant standing places. Of course, that near to capacity means rounded number exluding some tens or houndreds of people. Such statement is good enough to be included. So please stop deleting it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So close enough is good enough, is it?

Well, I suppose we should change Hamilton's pole time from 1:38.513 to 1:38.000, then. I mean, that's close enough to what he got, and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two times anyway.

Now, I know what you're going to say: that's ridiculous. Hamilton got a 1:38.513, and we can't go changing it for the sake of convenience. And I agree whole-heartedly. So why then, can we just be vague and general about the attendance figures?

If it's important enough to be included in the article, then it's important enough to be shown accurately. Attendance figures might not be crucial to the article, but that is no excuse for sloppy or lazy editing. Either get an accurate number from a reliable, verifiable source, or don't bother. It's the same standard that every other piece of information in the article is held to, and it's the same standard that the attendance figures will be held to. No exceptions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you must know very well that your example with Hamilton's pole time is really silly. We talk about a number of people, then you should delete all rounded numbers at Wikipedia, like for example rounded population of USA or other milions of such stuff:-) Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's as ridiculous as my argument to change Hamilton's time. We're not talking about hundreds of millions of people—just tens of thousands.
And I see you haven't bothered to answer my questions, so I will ask them again: first, why are the attendance figures so crucial to the article? And second, why are they so important that we can afford to give a generalised number when everything else is specific? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not ridiculous, for tens of thousands it is the same. I have quickly searched over Wikipedia, and, why do not you go ahead and delete all rounded population figures for example here: Perth, Scotland, Sandwell, Kirklees, or festivals: Tomorrowland (festival) or Ultra Music Festival and many others. It is just, if we do not have more accurate numbers, we use what we have, before someone do not come up with a better ones. As for your question, it could not be important for me, but for Haken arizona it is. It is just same figure like in any other article. If is something unimportant for me, would i go and delete this? Of course not. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any information about the gran prix will increase the quality and richness of the encyclopedia Prisonermonkeys guy is out of line and wants to dictate what goes in and what does not. There are many grand prix articles that have vague weather report for example it will say, "cool" and "rainy", you can't compare Hamilton's pole time because time is timed by accurate machines, attendance figures are usually estimated. Haken arizona — Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be kept because someone likes it?
I am not opposed to the inclusion of the figures. What I am opposed to is the inaccurate and/or improper inclusion of the figures for the sake of it and against the established conventions of the Formula 1 WikiProject. In the grand scheme of things, the attendance figures are perhaps the least important pieces of information that could be included in the article. It's not a question of what is important or unimportant for someone—it's a question of what is important for the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Prisonermonkeys and Haken arizona, both of you desperately need to realize that endlessly reverting each other, hoping that one of you will eventually give up, is not the way to resolve a dispute. Exactly what part of WP:3RR and WP:BRD do neither of you understand? If you find the other part unavailable for reason there are other ways to solve it, which have been named by now. Above all: DON'T REVERT. It causes nothing but disruption. Even if the article isn't currently in the state you consider to be correct, don not revert. Discuss and strive a consensus with the other party in a constructive manner.

Secondly, @Prisonermonkeys:, can you explain what the fundamental problem is with this source, the recent most one used to support the included attendance figure? It does state a specific figure. Tvx1 (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: it says "a near capacity crowd of 55,000". The problem is that this is contradicted by other sources, which say that 55,000 is a capacity crowd. So which is it going to be?
Also, thank you for the entirely unnecessary lecture. The issue has already been covered by Dreadstar who, unlike you, is actually an admin. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I'm not an administrator does not mean I can't advise other users on what's prohibited by policy and about which mechanisms exist to resolve disputes. On the matter, wether or not it's capacity or near-capacity, the point is it states there were 55,000. What's the problem? Tvx1 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you see fit to do it a week after the issue had been dealt with?
There are two problems with the source:
1) This source says "a near capacity crowd if 55,000", but other sources say that the venue can only hold 55,000. So which source is best?
2) How near to capacity is "near capacity"? Say the venue holds 55,000 people, but only 50,000 spectators were present. Now, that is near to capacity—but it's still out by 5,000 people, which is not a small problem. So when did close enough become good enough? Everything else in the article is accurate, but here we have a vague source that is suddenly being treated as a suitable one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my advice only now, because I only became aware of it now.
Now why is the nuance of near-capacity or capacity is such a fundamental problem. All the sources state the same figure of 55,000 attendees. That's the most important and consistent part. They don't disagree over the number. They all state the same number. So that should be enough reliability and verifiability. Tvx1 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the article? It says "near capacity of 55,000". The use of the word "near" is key here. It means the race saw a crowd that was close to full, but not actually full. And it gives no indication of just how close it was to being full. It's not an appropriate source because it is so vague. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys (talk) Admits that he is against publishing attendance information because he believes it is least important. There is no point in going into discussion with this person sense he will have a bias against it no mater what source you provide. You should go argue 6 million figure in Holocaust page then. WP:DR, take it to WP:RS/N, get a WP:3O, will have to do this, get moderator involved. Haken arizona, — Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do that and quit talking about others; and quit the comparisons of this to the holocaust, it's not right at all and you should know that. Dreadstar ☥ 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Ok, moderator can you do WP:DR for this then we can take it from there Haken arizona,[reply]
If you want a DRN, you have got a DRN. But until such time as it is resolved, please leave the article alone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make an important point re temperature conversions

[edit]

I have undone the edit you (IP 216.85.165.130) made to 2014 Russian Grand Prix regarding the temperature figure, because I was not sure what your edit summary was getting at. If you think I was in error and you can better explain your edit, then please let me know on my talk page. Moriori (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who made the edit that you reversed, though I was not logged in at the time I made it.
The °C->°F temperature conversion formula for a single specific temperature is "F=1.8*C+32". This is what the works correctly for a statement such as "right now, the temperature is 12°C (54°F) outside". But it does not work properly when you are calculating a temperature interval (either drop or rise), so "the end of the race will be 12°C (54°F) cooler than the start" is a mathematically incorrect statement. It's a bit easier to see when the C value is '0': "the end of the race will be 0°C (32°F) cooler than the start" is what you would see if the normal formula is used.
The correct formula for temperature interval conversion is "F2-F1=1.8*(C2-C1)", which drops the "+32" portion of the standard formula since you are only measuring the ratio of C to F for an interval conversion, since the "+32" is simply an offset between the specific temperature "0°C" but has no bearing on the interval of "0°C". Therefore the correct statement would be "the end of the race will be 12°C (22°F) cooler than the start" or "the end of the race will be 0°C (0°F) cooler than the start".
Using the example in the article, if at the beginning of the race it was 21 °C (70 °F), and the expected drop during the race is 12°C, then at the end of the race it would be 9°C (48°F). And 70°F - 48°F = 22°F which is what you'd get from the interval formula "F2-F1=1.8*(C2-C1)" -> "70-48=1.8*(21-9)=21.6≈22", not 54°F as the article originally stated. And 54 - 22 = 32, which is the "+32" part that gets dropped from the normal °C->°F formula when calculating an interval.
I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of articles on Wikipedia that include this type of mistake, not only because the formulas embedded into wiki editor are very convenient to use, but even outside of Wikipedia it's an easy mistake to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capedcadaver (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a very important point which I admit never occurred to me when I reverted your edit, for which I apologise. I think this needs wider exposure so I am moving my first post, your response, and this post of mine, to this more relevant talk page. I believe it will be useful to regular editors. Thanks. Moriori (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated the {{convert}} template, but with the correct parameters for a change in temperature: {{convert|12|C-change|F-change}} which produces: 12 °C (22 °F) DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was not aware that was an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capedcadaver (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing context

[edit]

The opening sentence in the main body of the article - "With the circuit being built on the site of the 2014 Winter Olympics..." - lacks context. Anyone reading the article for the first time could be forgiven for wondering if a paragraph had been lost from the beginning of that section. Would anyone mind if I attempted to put some context ahead of that? Dential (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good point there. It could really do with a paragraph on how this race came into existance. Tvx1 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have started adding something. Dential (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is start, but it could do with some more information where the idea of a Russian Grand Prix streamed from and why it came to be held in Sochi. Tvx1 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for adding context where context is needed, but I don't think these revisions are necessary. This is the text that was added:

"The Russian Grand Prix was added to the F1 World Championship calendar for the first time for the 2014 season. The race was held on a newly constructed street circuit built around the Sochi Olympic Park, the venue of the 2014 Winter Olympics. It was the first Russian Grand Prix in a century, and the first time the country had ever hosted a round of the Formula One World Championship."

But let's compare that to other parts of the article - particularly the lead:

"The race, contested over fifty-three laps, was held at the Sochi Autodrom, a brand new circuit built on the site of the 2014 Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi inKrasnodar Krai, Russia.

And also this part:

"The race marked the first time that the Russian Grand Prix had been held in a century, and was also the first time the Russian Grand Prix was run as a round of the Formula One World Championship since the championship was formed in 1950."

What do those revisions say that the article does not already? The lead, which is written in the standard format for race report articles hits all the main points - that the circuit was in Sochi and was brand-new, that the race was the first Russian GP in a century, and the first time the Russian GP had been run as part of the championship. Furthermore, the sub-section "Preparations" goes into detail on the circuit's origins.

Context is good, but here it goes too far. It doesn't add anything new to the article, and is really very redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, anything in the lead should be in the corpus of the article as well. So that's not a big problem. After all the lead does state that Lewis Hamilton won the race, even though that is already explained further down in the body of the article. Tvx1 01:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it is incorporated into the article - it appears in the section "Preparations".
Furthermore, look at the spacing - the lead says Hamilton won, as does the body, but there is a lot of content between the two. With regards to the context, it appeared three times in quick succession. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 17:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this shortly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Dear Prisonermonkeys, as you've probably seen, I made some minor adjustments myself. What I feel is left to do for GA status is:

  • Generally, I feel that all of the inline citations given in the lead could be moved in the infobox or removed because they are given in the article body.
  • Weather needs a source,
  • Background: You give a photo of the first Russian GP, but there is no text about those early editions. If you write nothing about it, you need a source in the caption, and in the lead where the first races are also mentioned.
  • I cannot find a source for the statement that it was the first time that anyone except the FIA had such power.
  • Marussia entry: Even though it does not relate strictly to this race, you should probably mention that Bianchi's accident later proved fatal.
  • Free practice and qualifying: Both sections are written in a way that non-regular F1 watchers or laymen will probably be left with questions about how these sessions take place. You should give a short overview over the process: How many session are there? Who is eliminated when? and so forth and give sources for that.
  •  Added, though it's weird that you raise this. These explanations are not consistently present in the 2015 article you wrote for a considerable part and they achieved Good Article status nevertheless. Tvx1 11:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #21 only mentions that Sirotkin was scheduled to take place, you should add another source that confirms that he did.
  • Is compatriot a proper synonym for teammate? I've never heard it in that context and considering compatriot includes patria, I also find that usage quite strange.
  • Free practice: The first sentence of the second paragraph needs changes. It was Hamilton, not Mercedes who led the way and he didn't do so once again considering that Rosberg was fastest in FP1.
  • Race: I feel that you should give the live ticker source earlier, at the end of the fourth paragraph at the latest, and then only repeat it at the end of the section.
  • Post-race: I feel that only covering the championship situation here is a little slim. Maybe you can include more reactions from teams and drivers?
  • Now for the good old table dilemma: We have not yet agreed in the Project to switch back to wikitables for the 2015 reports. I know you like the other ones, but for consistency's sake, all 2014 reports should have the old wikitables.
  • Ref #46 (from Caterham) is dead.

Overall, very good work so far! I am on vacation until the 12th and will not be able to react until then. So take your time to implement the changes. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: You could bold the drivers and teams still capable of winning the title.

Additional remark:

@Prisonermonkeys: @Tvx1: It's been more than a week and not all of the above has been dealt with. I'd hate to fail this, since it's not far away from passing. Can you tell me when you'll be able to adress the issues? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure. Things have come up in real life that demand my attention. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I'll try to tackle another few of the issues. Tvx1 10:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat, I can keep the review open until the end of the GA Cup :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have successfully archived all the refs using Checklinks to prevent further link rot. This is still a major working point for the project. Only 3 of the 59 refs were archived (coincidentally by me) before I archived the rest. We really all should develop the habit to archive url's straight away when we enter them. It is really a little effort and it saves a lot of work afterwards because it prevents link rot.
Having run the copyvio tool, I might have detected some possible copyright violation tool. Tvx1 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that that hints toward copyvio. I don't usually use that tool anyway since everytime I have, it was far too oversensitive, giving false positives a lot... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry after all. It seems the copying went in the other direction. Tvx1 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1:, @Prisonermonkeys: Any chance one of you can get around to taking care of what is left to do? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of what was left to do myself. Pass now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Russian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196669807"