Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 24 Hours of Le Mans/archive1

2007 24 Hours of Le Mans[edit]

I'm looking for any comments available to improve this article. However it would probably help the most with concentrations on headings and writing style, plus suggestions for improvements to citations. The359 06:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using {{cite web}} for the references. Here is a sample. utcursch | talk 09:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I'll get on that part tomorrow when I have the time. The359 10:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Comments. Ok, here goes nothing...

The lead section needs a lot of work, and should be phrased assuming zero prior knowledge. Somewhere in there you need to mention that it is a motor race, for example! See WP:LEAD for guidance.

I've attempted to expand the intro, but I'm am not quite sure if it works at the moment.

Similarly, the prose in the main body text assumes a certain amount of prior understanding. For example, the "Track Changes" section refers to "more upgrades to the Circuit de la Sarthe". More? More than what? This requires you to go away and read around the subject, not desirable.

Done Removed the word more and only listed things that changed between 2006 and 2007.

On a related point, in the Track Changes section specific mention is made of particular corners. As you are discussing the track changes here you ought to have a figure to assist. However, you may like to think about slimming this section down and moving most of the track and rule changes (combine the two? just a thought...) into the history page, and just providing a brief summary with links in this article.

Done Added a track map which, although not 100% correct in its layout of the course, does at least list the corners correctly. I also attempted to slim down both the Track Changes and Rule Changes as sections as well. For now I've kept them seperate, but they can be combined if needed.

Jargon, terminology and abbreviations. There is quite a lot of it! In some cases (e.g. IMSA) these are properly introduced, but others (LMP, GT, restrictor, muffler {fatuous numpty comment: the cars wear scarfs? ;-}, ACO, etc.) should be linked or explained on first use.

Done for the first sections. I've attempted to link many terms, especially Le Mans Prototype, Grand tourer, pit lane, and most acronyms. There might be some still to clean up. There are still some to work on in the reports.

Referencing. A few statements of disputable fact require a citation. There are too many to list specifically, but one example would be that the entry list was "planned to be released following the 2007 12 Hours of Sebring". Really? How do you know? etc etc etc... Any such statement ought to be accompanied by a citation.

I was mostly going off of what I am used to and realize I do not have an actual source to back up the claim. I removed that particular statement anyway in an attempt to slim down some sections.

Still on citation, there is an overwhelming reliance on the official website. For such a long and substantial article this is a major weakness. As there are reports of the race on many sites (BBC, Autosport, etc) and in magazines and newspapers, it would be better to introduce a range of sources, to introduce a variety of viewpoints and just in case the official site goes u/s at some point and the article is left without any traceable source information.

I had used the ACO site initially due to the fact that it was easier to find specific stories (since they updated every few minutes). I will replace some of these citations with other news websites soon.

Done

You need to get a good hold on the desirable level of detail. This should include a consideration of what actually matters to the subject of the article (i.e. the race itself). For example, failed reserve entries really don't even merit mention, let alone a full listing. I have a feeling that much of the entry list section and subsections may be a hang over from when it was a {{future sport}} article, and isn't really appropriate for a historical article. Remember that we are a general interest wiki, and there are specialist motorsport wikis that would love that level of detail.

I've removed the reserve entries that did not make it, but I feel that the entry list section is important enough to keep, simply because of the nature of Le Mans. Teams have to be invitated to participate, while most other races simply have you say you're going to participate and you're in, barring any space issues. Keeping some things such as teams which made it in from the reserve entry list would also explain why the initial entry list is different from the race results.

Minor point: linking dates. It adds nothing and in some browser/preferences configurations needlessly breaks up text. You only need link a year or date if it actually points to something related to the article, e.g. 2006.

Done I eliminated all date links except for the two in the intro. I also kept links specific to previous Le Mans results.

Headings for the "Reports" section. Although I like the broad structure, I would be more bold with the heading priorities. Get rid of "Reports" and elevate "Testing" to a == header. Similarly "Qualifying" and "Race" would be easier to find if they were first level headers; this is what the article is ultimately all about, after all. Conversely, the "Results" section should be a subset of the "Race" section, in a manner similar to how you have handled the qualifying information. All other headings can remain as they are.

Done I spent quite some time earlier trying to figure out how to lay the reports and results out. This seems to work.

On the results table. Why did you drop the previous form, with separate subheadings for NC and DNF categories? I think in an event with such a long entry list it makes it much easier to see what is what if they are delineated clearly, and not just left to the reader to spot the little DNF in the left column (e.g. 1968). Just my tuppen'th, but I liked your old style!

I dropped the old style for two reasons: 1) I did not like that the two or three seperate charts did not line up when an exceptionally long name would make one section longer then others. Having the single chart I felt looked cleaner and made finding things easier by simply reading straight down. I agree it may make it hard to go straight to the DNFs, but regardless of the chart style, one would expect DNFs to be at the bottom, would they not? 2) Many sports car races outside of Le Mans do not automatically move DNFs to the bottom since some DNFs may have done more laps then a car that finished. Therefore breaking things into multiple charts would be confusing. Therefore for the sake of keeping things similar I felt that having the unified results chart would be better overall for all sports car races, even Le Mans.

As for the race report itself, well, save the best for last. There are a few flaws (mostly unencyclopedic language and jargon; "took the green" for example, that just hurts my eyes to read!) but in general it is far better written than many recent F1 reports (unfortunately...). There should be a degree of formality to the language tone (we are not ESPN or SkySports), but your style is generally pleasantly lively so just minor tweaks to reduce the tabloid feel of some sections. Specific style comments are:

Use of tense. Maintain past perfect tense, not conditional (e.g. "would be the first retirement" should read "was the first retirement"), and don't be tempted to slip into the present tense (e.g. "with the gearbox failing" should read "when the gearbox failed").

Some of this is due to the article transforming from the future to the present to the past. I've been trying to clean these up, will continue to.

Done

Careful with some minor phrasing. For example "the Creation" sounds like biblical intervention, and would be better off as "the Creation Autosportif entry" or "the Creation car". Just a case of a widely used phrase also being a model of car.

Done I realized that Creation thing sounded unusual when I saved that revision but never bothered to fix it.

Content gaps. Some glaring omissions, but not many. For example, "a large amount of oil was spilled on the track". Where? By whom? How come? For something that had such an influence this is a bit skimpy on information.

Will fix once I figure out who actually dumped the oil...

Done

Spelling. Just a few minor points, e.g. passed -> past. Either "the Audi passed", or "the Audi had gone past".

Will attempt to fix. The359 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Blimey, that was more than I was intending. Let me know when you have had your fun and I'll swing back and do a proper copyedit if you like. Nice article in any case! Pyrope 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have it all fairly well fixed now, with some minor concerns over the intro and layout debate. The359 04:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]