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

Talk:2014 Spanish Grand Prix

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on 2014 Spanish Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Will gladly review this :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Sorry that this took longer than anticipated, I am starting the review process now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
  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:

General things

[edit]

Lead & infobox

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Practice

[edit]

Qualifying

[edit]

Post-qualifying

[edit]

Race

[edit]
  • Infobox says weather was overcast, but race report says it was sunny. This should be consistent. You can put the more excessive weather info into the infobox as well.
  • "A three-stop strategy was determined to be the optimal strategy but a two-stop strategy was theorised to give a driver better track position." - clarify who theorised these things
  • "dirty air" - this term needs to be explained or described in other words
  • "had to take it at his first pit stop" - maybe better "serve it"?
  • "rear tyre degradation" --> "rear-tyre degradation"
  • "that time round" --> this time around
  • "Upfront, Hamilton requested assistance to rectify an oversteer on his car and Mercedes suggested he close the car's differential in turns three and four." - I would scrap this sentence and the next, this is completely trivial information, no one reading would care about this. Also, nobody understands what differential even means. Instead, try to summarize it a bit ("Hamilton was struggling with first over- then understeer on his car" or something like that)
  • "clear air" - again, this term needs an explanation
  • "Alonso overtook Magnussen going into the first corner with DRS for ninth on lap 36 and Vettel got ahead of Massa to move into eighth on the following lap." - So Vettel was ninth before he passed Massa? But Alonso was ninth, according to the same sentence! Confusing! Then the next sentence, Massa is suddenly in 11th, moving up to tenth, were he just was? How did that happen?
  • This uncovers a general problem with this article: You use a live race report as your primary source, and cover every single detail in the source. But the source does not portray everything that happened. I would generally say: Cut some minor stuff. There is no need to cover all passes in the minor placings. It's just confusing to the reader and makes the race report harder to follow. And it creates weird instances like the ones I pointed out.
  • "and asked for the gap and speed difference" - trivial, cut
  • "Alonso did the same in response for the medium compound tyres" - medium-compound tyres
  • "forbidden higher-powered engine" - forbidden by whom?

Post-race

[edit]

I place this review on hold for now. Good work so far! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Sorry again for the delay, my computer kind of broke down. Gotta go through it tomorrow, but I feel positive that the article can be promoted then. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWright96: OK, went over it again, and I am quite satisfied. Made some minor corrections myself as well. There is just one more thing bothering me: In the race report, you describe the "forbidden engine mode". But then in the post-race section, this aspect is not picked up again. So was this a talking point after the race? If not, why was it important enough to include it in the race report? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: Have added the consequences of its use in the post-race section. MWright96 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWright96: Wonderful! I am gladly passing this for GA now! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Spanish_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196670827"