• 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it could (with a bit of work) be FA standard. The template I am following for the article are the two FAs 1995 Japanese Grand Prix and 1995 Pacific Grand Prix. It is stylistically identical to 2008 Italian Grand Prix and 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which has been PR'ed here and here. Thanks in advance for the criticism. Apterygial 02:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ's PR

Lead

• "It was the 16th race of the 2008 Formula One season." - 16th and antepenultimate race? It's a rarely used word, but it's usage here is correct and helps identify that we've reached the 'business end' of the season (once the reader has looked up it's meaning!).
  • I put it in. I can imagine getting a WTF? at FAC! Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're getting a WTF right now! I know what it means, despite not having encountered it before, but I'm strongly of the view that it will cast more shadow than light. Possibly better to say "third from last" or some variation of "16th of 18"? 4u1e (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the run into the first corner" - doesn't sound quite the right tone IMO.
  • "At the first corner" Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Massa was penalised after an incident on lap two where he touched Hamilton's car and spun it around." - First we've heard of this Massa bloke, full name & WL etc. required.
  • Added. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The incident dropped Hamilton to the back of the race, from which he was unable to recover." - > "from where he was unable to recover"?
  • I had that originally, but it doesn't seem to flow. Can you think of an alternative to either? Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of stating he was unable to recover, you could say he eventually finished outside the top-ten? AlexJ (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still not sure. I can't think of a way to get that in without having to say why that should be unexpected. Apterygial 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about: "The incident dropped Hamilton to the back of the field; he was unable to recover higher than 12th place by the end of the race"? 4u1e (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I like that. That's thinking, people! Apterygial 01:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bourdais was penalised, and demoted from sixth to tenth position." - Two things that may need to be mentioned here, a) Penalty applied post-race & b) Penalty was universally slammed by the media (and ex-drivers? no mention of what they thought later in the article)
  • Added. I'll see what I can add in post-race
    • I don't remember reading anything from former drivers. Do you have any links? Apterygial 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did find one by Mark Blundell here that basically summarises what he said. Not sure if there's anything there that can be worked in. AlexJ (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about "Mark Blundell, writing for Telegraph.co.uk, called for former drivers to be part of the stewards meetings which award penalties: "You can examine pieces of paper, graphs, telemetry, but you don't know what's going on in a driver's brain until you've experienced it." And cite it. Gives a different perspective. Apterygial 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep, just thinking about how you could stress MB was an former driver without using former driver twice in the same sentence. I think that's the fact about him you want to get over rather than the paper he wrote for. AlexJ (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Added. I think I cited it right too. Apterygial 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The victory was Alonso's second in two races..." - "second consecutive win" sounds better?
  • Sure does. Changed. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "...after he came from 15th to win the Singapore Grand Prix." - Do we need the details of how he won a different race in the lead section?
  • I think so, as it gives a feeling of Renault and Alonso rising in the last part of the season. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, how about "after he had unexpectedly won the previous race from 15th position on the starting grid."? 4u1e (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the "starting grid" bit, and added that. Apterygial 01:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "launched their Make Cars Green campaign in Formula One at the Grand Prix." This reads a bit confusing - was it the launch of the campaign or launch of the F1 part of the campaign? Or is the campaign to make F1 cars green?
  • I think that's better. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practice & Quali

• "Both Force Indias spent the majority of the session in their garage, suffering numerous mechanical problems." - "Force Indias" or "Force India cars"? I think you may be right here, but I'm not sure.
  • I think I'm probably right. For example, you can say "the McLarens" or "the Ferraris". Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hamilton clinched his sixth pole position of the season with a late lap of 1:18.404." - Late lap? Aren't the pole laps usually the second run of Q3 (usually done right at the end of the session)? Was this exceptionally late?
  • I removed it. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Coulthard bettered team-mate Webber when he qualified 11th; Piquet split the Red Bull drivers in 12th." There's a small assumption being made here - it is implied that DC and MW are the Red Bull drivers but it's not mentioned clearly anywhere. If you didn't know that fact, it takes a bit of thought to try and decipher the sentence so I suggest a reword.
  • I write a lot of this on the assumption that people know stuff like this, if they don't it's all in the Classification section. Do you think that's enough? Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race

• "Hamilton badly locked-up into the first corner" - better as "badly locked-up his (f/b l/r) wheels while braking going into the first corner"?
  • Changed. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "bumping Räikkönen off the track" - Contact was made?
  • Räikkönen seems to think so. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may have been beneficial for Kimi to make it appear as bad as possible. Having looked at the video, I'd say it was inconclusive whether contact was made. Suggest a reword where you mention that KR claimed contact was made. Also looking at the video, it would appear Heikki was involved in pushing Kimi wide: [1]. Can sources be found that would allow that to be included? AlexJ (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The GrandPrix.com source that I've been using a lot [2] says that both McLarens hit KR. I'll can see if I can add that in. Apterygial 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "emerging ahead of Kubica to take the provisional lead." - It was the lead I believe, not provisional lead, unless by that you mean there were cars ahead that were yet to stop. If so, then that's not how I read it, so you may need to reword it.
  • Now reads: "Alonso pitted on lap 18, emerging ahead of Kubica to take the provisional lead, with cars in front still to pit." Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Trulli, Vettel and Bourdais pitted over the following laps; Fisichella retired from the race with gearbox problems." - The two events are not linked.
  • Split. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Alonso pitted on lap 43 and changed on the softer compound tyre." - changed onto the softer/changed to the softer?
  • • Typo fixed. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Massa spun, but rejoined the track." - No mention made of stewards stating the incident was to be investigated after the race (we had a Race Control message saying such on the telecast if I recall correctly).
  • Added. And everybody thought "well Massa is going to be penalised for this..." Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "but the Pole drove right," - add "to block KR" or "to cover his line" or similar?
  • "to block". Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The following lap, Kubica attempted to replicate the manoeuvre," - Which manoeuvre? I thought KR was trying to pass Kubica? If you mean replicate the block then a reword is needed.
  • "blocking manoeuvre". Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kubica held the inside on the turn three left-hander" - inside > inside line. Not sure about using left-hander, could be seen as jargon.
  • Changed to inside line. Probably isn't jargon; people use it when they drive in normal life. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-race

• "Bourdais received a 25-second penalty for his collision with Massa on lap 50." - Could strech this sentance out a bit. When was he given the penalty (xx hours after the race had finished), "penalty from the race stewards for his collision" etc. Just thinking of the comprehensive requirement if you want to take this to FA.
  • 40 minutes. Good thinking. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "I did everything I could not to run into him...it's going to be an incident." - No quote marks for that in the article. Not sure if that's correct by the MOS, but it looks a bit weird to me.
  • It uses the {{quote}} template. It looks weird because the Kubica picture blocks the normal indentation. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "gambled with a kamikaze attempt to get past Räikkönen." - Not sure if the wikilink to kamikaze adds anything here. Really it's the slang usage meaning reckless that's the meaning being used here rather than Japanese suicide pilots, which is what the WP entry is about.
  • Removed. Good catch. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Reference 41 - L'Équipe.fr - Needs to have a |language=French bit in the Cite web
  • Added. I noticed you went through the Brazilian GP article and fixed the cites. I'll have to put aside a couple of hours to do that with this article and the Italian one. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It took me ~10 minutes to do - I'm quite happy to do it for any of the articles once they've gone through their PR. AlexJ (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well Italy has :). It looked like a lot of work. If you are happy to do that, I'm very pleased. The key thing is that I will remember to include it when I write the 2008 Chinese Grand Prix page (very boring race, I'm a little interested in how I'm going to write FM's pass - "KR's tyres started to wear and his team-mate passed him..."). Apterygial 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That pass was probably the highlight of the race! More seriously, it's probably the bit you can go into a little detail on, providing both sides of the story by contrasting the drivers responses in the press conference with the cynicism expressed by commentators and journalists. But more on that in a future PR... AlexJ (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't required for either FA or GA status, but as a precaution consider archiving the ITV-F1 webpages you reference using WebCite or similar. As they've lost the TV rights to the coverage, I suspect that their website may only be around for another year or so. The archive url you get from WebCite can be added to the Cite web template using the fields |archiveurl= and |archivedate
  • I've never done anything like that before. I'll see what I can do. My thinking now is that the BBC has maintained their site, maybe ITV will too... Apterygial
    • It's very simple to do, just go to http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php and type in the URL of the page you want to archive, and your email address (they've never sent me any messages/spam other than one email with the archive url after each request). They'll then email you the address you need to add to the archiveurl= bit of {{cite web.
    • It is also perhaps worth explaining that the BBC and ITV sites operate very differently. The BBC site was launched in 1997 after the BBC had lost the rights for coverage. The BBC site covers most major sports, regardless of whether they hold rights to show the sport or not, and is more akin to a news site. ITV's site on the other hand is for their TV coverage arm, not their news arm (ITN) and has most of it's text content is provided by an independant (Haymarket, publisher of Autosport). I suspect when the current deal with Haymarket ends, ITV are not going to spend money renewing it. As I say, it's not a requirement for FAC, but it'd be annoying to come back in 18 months and potentially find lots of broken links. AlexJ (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually did one about an hour ago. I'll do the others and add it to the article. I have to say that I was disproportionately excited with it when the URL was up. I really shouldn't be on Wikipedia and be an internet cynic. Apterygial 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Apterygial 10:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's also the Internet Archive (more specifically the Wayback machine!) which can be used for a similar purpose. That's perhaps better suited to occasions when the page you wanted has already gone - but you are reliant on what they choose to archive. 4u1e (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 9 - I think you'd struggle to convince people at FAC that GPUpdate.net is a reliable source.
  • I don't think so, actually. It looks pretty solid to me. What would be your concerns? Apterygial 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know who's behind it, either the organization or the people who write for it. Who's to say it's not just a very professional looking fan site? AlexJ (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. In the interests of making this article watertight for FAC, I've replaced the cite with one from the FIA which has the same quote. Apterygial 10:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much all I could spot. AlexJ (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a couple of reply questions in there. Apterygial 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick point - was the reaction to the green-grooved tyres notable enough to warrant a mention in the article?--Diniz(talk) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it mainly because the pictures show green-grooved tyres, and I can imagine people asking why. Apterygial 23:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple more points:

• Some more sourced views on the Massa-Hamilton collision would be a good addition.
  • Looking now, but for various RL reasons I'm not hugely lucid at the moment. Apterygial 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addificatorized. Apterygial 02:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• From my understanding of the race, Hamilton had to pit to change his damaged tyres regardless of the incident with Massa. Would this make a useful addition to the article if it can be sourced?--Diniz(talk) 19:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grandprix.com source I used a lot refers to his tyres as being "square". I don't really think it'd be that important, as it clearly didn't have a huge impact on the race (hence why I stop talking about Hamilton after his penalty). You do wonder why he didn't pit after the first lap if it was hugely urgent. Apterygial 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

Oops - late to the party :D

• Should Hamilton's poor start be mentioned in the lead, since that's what got him into trouble in the first place? In the main description of the start, should we say that Hamilton was also quite rude with Kovalainen at the start? I seem to remember at least some commentators mentioning it.
  • It's probably not really important in the lead, what he did next probably has more bearing on a brief summary. With regards to Kovalainen, it's a fairly hard thing to source objectively. I had it in originally (no record exists, I excised it in the same edit). I don't know how important it would be. Apterygial 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's no source, then obviously we can't include it. Perhaps I'm remembering wrong. 4u1e (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead, final para: "Kubica was able to" I suspect I've been infected by 'Tonyism', but I'd be inclined to delete this as relatively meaningless and leave the sentence as "Kubica held off a determined attack from Räikkönen in the closing laps..."
  • Changed. There is nothing wrong with Tonyism in a pre-FAC PR. Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ferrari formed a seven point lead.." Seems like a slightly odd used of formed. "Ferrari extended their lead to seven points over McLaren..."?
  • That's what I had originally, but going into the race they trailed by a point. So we can't say that they extended their lead. Got any more suggestions? ;) Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuts. Er: "Ferrari gained a seven-point lead over McLaren..."? 4u1e (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Background: "McLaren were leading on 135 points having passed Ferrari at the previous race; their rivals now second on 134 points." I think I'm right in saying that each clause has to be a valid standalone sentence in this construction, which is not the case here. You could simply insert "were" after rivals, or go for something completely different like: "At the previous race, McLaren had reached 135 points in the constructors' championship and taken the lead from Ferrari by one point."
  • "were" Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Background: I'd remove the lengthy description of Alonso's previous race and simply state that "he had benefitted from unusual race circumstances to win the race from 15th on the grid."
  • But wouldn't you still have to say what "unusual race circumstances" were? I think it helps to have it there because it sets up a 'Background' to his mindset, first this luck, but what can his car do on a real track? Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point - can it be done more briefly though? 4u1e (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Background: Repetition of "environmentally friendly driving" in last para.
  • Fixed (rather aggressively). Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P&Q: "Hamilton managed only eleventh, though was better than Kovalainen and Raikkönen..." Slightly odd wording again. "Hamilton managed only eleventh, ahead of Kovalainen and Raikkönen..."?
  • "Hamilton managed only eleventh, but was ahead of Kovalainen and Raikkönen..."?
    • Yep. 4u1e (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P&Q: Do we need to say that the qualifying session was on Saturday afternoon?
  • Added. Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P&Q third para: "Originally sitting in provisional third..." can be reduced to "Provisionally sitting in third..."
  • Changed. Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Race: "The conditions on the grid were dry before the race, the air temperature at 16 °C (61 °F) and the track temperature at 21 °C (70 °F)" I don't think this works does it? The second clause isn't really anything to do with the first one (since it's about temperature not dryness). Suggest you break them into two separate sentences.
  • Split. Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Race: "bumping Raikkonen off the track". FWIW, after looking closely at the video after the race, my recollection is that it was clear that although Hamilton may have hit Raikkonen (and was certainly driving like a loon!) it was actually Kovelainen who pushed him off track. I've only looked quickly at the sources you've used, but I couldn't see a definite statement in any of them that Hamilton hit Raikkonen and bumped him off track. Can we re-word slightly to something more like: "Hamilton badly locked-up his front wheels while braking going into the first corner; both he and then his team-mate Kovalainen hit Raikkonen" followed by "Hamilton was penalised for forcing Raikkonen off track". I know this seems like a subtle difference, but we know for definite that that was what he was penalised for, but I'm not sure we know for definite that that was exactly what happened. (note: For the record, yes, I'm generally a Hamilton fan, but he drove like an idiot on that first lap and pretty much deserved what he got. I'm just not sure he actually forced Raikkonen off-track.)
  • Those are all good ideas. I've changed what I think you were referring to in there (you may still want to have a look). For the record, is there anyone who has contributed to this PR who isn't a Hamilton fan? Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Probabably. 4u1e (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apterygial 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I don't like antepenultimate. I'll leave it up to you, but I would prefer something along the lines "It was the 16th race of 18 of the ..."
  • The last sentence of the lead says that there are two races remaining. I could remove that idea from the first paragraph, as it is explained later. Apterygial 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fernando Alonso's victory at the Singapore Grand Prix was his first Formula One win since moving back to Renault after driving for McLaren in 2007." Does this mean Alonso moved back to Renault in 2007 or drove for McLaren in 2007?
  • I think that comma should solve the problem. Apterygial 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first part of qualifying ran for 20 minutes and eliminated the cars that finished the session 16th or lower. The second part of qualifying lasted 15 minutes and eliminated cars that finished in positions 11 to 15." I don't think eliminated is the right word. When I read it, I thought the cars 16th and lower were eliminated from the race at this stage. But then the next sentence suggests I'm wrong.
  • I clarified what they were eliminated from. Is that enough? Apterygial 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The top three finishers appeared on the podium and in the subsequent press conference." Doesn't this happen after every race?
  • Yes. But it seemed useful to indicate where the quotes were given. Does that explain it? :) Apterygial 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Newspapers should be italicized.
  • I think I got them all.

Looks pretty good otherwise. Peanut4 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peanut. Good to get some outside eyes, and help us win the longest PR competition. Apterygial 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]