Talk:1995 Japanese Grand Prix/Archive 2

Schumacher's B195 - photo


If you're still looking for a photo of the #1 Benetton, then one is now available here.-- Diniz  (talk)  19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding issues from FAC candidacy
I've attempted to summarise the outstanding issues, from the discussion of the FAC nomination. Once these seem to be addressed, hopefully I can try and get the article to FA status.

From this, it seems that the article could become FA, but there are three major concerns:
 * 1) Sources
 * 2) Images
 * 3) Criteria 1a concern

D.M.N. (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment about Gale Force F1
The Gale Force F1 website, I believe, satisfies WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, along with WP:RS for a few reasons. The Gale Force website is linked from Autosport's/Atlas F1's reports, see here, with a comment saying it is "the fastest Formula 1 results service on the Internet". On Gale Force F1's history page, see here, it states that it has hosted in the past, the Atlas F1/Autosport website, as well as hosting the Pacific Racing F1 team site. As it hosted a reliable website, surely that doesn't make Gale Force reliable? Also, the Atlas F1 website has an About Us page, with a list of credentials an well as compliments from others inside Formula One. D.M.N. (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be a case of borderline source. Better to source the information elsewhere, and wouldn't work for anything contentious, but for basic facts, might pass muster. I'd probably do my "leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves" statement, but I wouldn't oppose the article solely on the useage of this site for non-contentious information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. If this website was sourced for a 2005 event, it'd probably be a lot easier to find other sources, but as the event took place in 1995, not many sources are available that cover the event (including pre-race sessions) in detail. D.M.N. (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"On x points"
I was going to jump in and copy edit, already have a question. I notice sentences like "Drive x was on 50 points". Why is the term "on" being used? Should't it be that they "had" 50 points, or they were "at" 50 points? I don't understand "on". Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. It should be "had" "Driver x had 50 points" sounds better than "Driver x on 50 points". D.M.N. (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I've jumped in an copy edited. Also, after "Benneton", I've switched "were" to "was" in a few spots. Even though it represents multiple people, the team is singular. Think of when refererring to the New York Yankees as just New York, you would write "New York was the best team last year", not "New York were the best team last year." I'll continue to look at it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for doing a copy-edit for us, I appreciate it. :) D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For example, "McLaren were appealing against the action of stewards" Autosport, "McLaren were heavily criticised for asking the drivers not to race each other" BBC and "McLaren were fined over £50m by the FIA" The Guardian. Common usage seems to lean towards using 'were' for a team, in F1 at least. AlexJ (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. Best to go with the sources then, might be more of an American thing. I do know, from prior experience, that the rules of grammar aren't explicity on this one way or the other (singular word representing multiple). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although, do any sources use it the other way? I really can't believe that "were" is being used in those cases, doesn't read right. Again, might be a British vs. American thing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A few more using 'were': "McLaren were very strong there" The Independant, "last year McLaren were fined a record £50million" Daily Mail and "McLaren were running Hamilton on a one-stop strategy" PA all use 'were', and it sounds right to me - I've never heard 'was' being used (except by pundit Mark Blundell, whose grammar is ridiculed ever so slightly). Might be a US/UK thing, as you say. AlexJ (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be best to revert back to the "were" being used? D.M.N. (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, go with the sources. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I checked on the "were" vs. "was" thing with SandyGeorgia, and it looks fine here. Definitely has to do with USA vs. Europe. The key is to be consistent in this article and other F1 articles, where it looks like for the most part "were" is being used. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even furthermore, I do apologize for not reviewing the entirety of the FAC review, where the "were" vs. "was" issue was already brought up. Coming in here and switching it to the old American way was quite sloppy on my part. Still getting used to heavy copy editing, I cringed a bit when reviewing the FAC review. Anyways, just wanted to point out that I saw that note there. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref #24
Ref 24 (ChicaneF1 Qualifying ref) I think should be removed. The reference is only used to back up the gaps between each of the cars from qualifying. I acutally worked out the gaps using calculator, and just used the ChicaneF1 ref to back it up. I personally don't think it is needed, and I think it should go. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhere previously we established that very simple mathematics didn't constitute OR, so didn't need a reference. Basically, providing the times themselves are present and referenced, the gaps can be verified by performing the same maths operation to check they're correct. AlexJ (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More copyediting, observations
I've continued with some copyediting. I removed two sentences that seemed to explain technical info regarding tyres but weren't particularly relevent to this article. One thing I noticed, in regards to how the unfamiliar with F1 would read, are expressions like "converted" places. Not sure how to copy edit that, just a note. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, there should probably be total consistency between "pitting" and "made a pitstop". It switches back and forth, although in general I'd say the mention of so many pitstops might be too much anyways. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put two different versions because having "made a pit stop" for every time it states that someone is entering the pits will become very repetitive and will eventually probably bore the reader to death. Thanks for the copy-edit, though. :) D.M.N. (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some comments
I was asked to provide some comments on the article (this version)... These are all my opinion and are based on the fact I haven't read through any failed FACs etc. Feel free to disregard. Hope they're of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraphs need to be bulked up a bit for an article of this length.
 * "..second beside Schumacher.." alongside?
 * Yup. I've changed it, but don't both words have the same meaning? D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "However, since his car..." - clarify it's Alesi you're talking about.
 * Reworded by (diff). It sounds better now the other way as Alesi is clarified. D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "...at the Pacific Grand Prix in the previous race..."- the Pacific GP was the previous race... so "in the previous race, the (1995) Pacific Grand Prix".
 * Changed, but I haven't put 1995 in at all, because it's already made apparant in the article that the season took place in 1995, therefore the reader should know the Pacific GP is the 1995 version. Anyhow, it links to the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article anyhow. D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The next sentence, while factual, is a little odd, maybe merge with the sentence after.
 * I don't really want to merge it, because I think the sentence will become two long with too many facts being squeezed into one sentence. Maybe a reword is necessary? D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "suffering an accident " - was it a crash? What exactly happened?  Not sure about "suffering" an accident.
 * Could I reword it to: "Wendlinger was given another chance to prove himself after crashing at a chicane in practice for the 1994 Monaco Grand Prix,..." - D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "This race had two prior practice sessions" - "Two practice sessions were held before the main race..."? And no need to repeat "session" in the clause after the semi-colon, it's clear what you're talking about.
 * Reworded the first part - without the word "main". I don't think it's needed because there was one race, and with it it may confuse the reader into thinking there was two races: a main race; and another lower key race. So, to clarify; I've reworded it to: "Two practice sessions were held before the race; the first was held on Friday morning and the second on Saturday morning. Both sessions lasted one hour and 45 minutes." D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * " Both sessions lasted one hour and 45 minutes. Both were held under dry conditions." - merge .. "..minutes and too place in dry conditions..."
 * I've actually reworded that whole sentence. Adding "and" as a connective would make "and" sound repetitive as it is used just before. Is this better: "Both sessions lasted one hour and 45 minutes with weather conditions dry throughout." D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "who was second posting a time " - I'd add a comma after "second".
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "second practice session on Saturday morning" no need to repeat when it was.
 * Removed. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I get confused. After that sentence (above) you say "Hill was third in the Williams" and the following para says "Hill was fourth in the Williams".  Firstly the time context seems to have gone out of the window and secondly you repeat the phrase verbatim (bar the position) so a little more imagination wouldn't go amiss.
 * Hill was third in 2nd practice, but was 4th in Qualifying, hence why it says that. I've reworded both examples. For the first bit (Hill third), it now reads: "Hill was third in the Williams two tenths behind Häkkinen;". For the second bit (Hill fourth in qualifying), it now reads: "Häkkinen was third in the McLaren, with Hill fourth, a second slower than Schumacher." - is this any better compared to before? D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the first qualifying session, held on Friday afternoon" again, no need to repeat when it was held.
 * This is the first time it's mentioned - before it was talking about practice. For absolute clarification practice was on Friday and Satrurday mornings; with Qualifying on Friday and Saturday afternoon. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Blundell crashed into the wall, meaning he could not set a time." - not 100% convinced that's logical - he crashed into the wall which prevented him completing a lap I assume. I've seen a few people hit walls etc and still set times.
 * I've added: "...as his car was too badly damaged" to the sentence. That's true, and it's supported by the Autocourse ref. That was in the article a few weeks ago, but I think that sentence was reworded before during one of the Peer reviews. D.M.N. (talk)
 * "at the 130R corner" - a little too jargony.
 * That's the official corner name though. Could I just put the turn number, eigi "at turn 14"? D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The race had a start time of 14:00 JST (GMT +9)" - why does that need two citations?
 * It doesn't. The web ref, didn't even support that, so I've removed it.
 * "Out of the 24 cars that qualified only 22 cars took the start. Because ..." - work on merging these two sentences so the logical flow works better.
 * Sorry, can't think of a way to merge it at the moment. The first part has been reworded by which makes it flow better. D.M.N. (talk)
 * "Schumacher converted his pole position from qualifying to lead into the first corner at the start of the race." - reads a little over the top for me. why not just something like Schumacher held his lead from the grid into the first corner?
 * What exactly makes it sound OTT? D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * " Wet tyres in Formula One are only needed if the track is wet, whereas slick tyres are used when the track is dry. Wet tyres are slower than slick tyres under dry conditions because they have poorer grip." I bet you were told to explain the significance of the tyre choice in a PR or FAC but these sentences really feel crowbarred in...
 * Yes I was told to insert a bit. I'm not going to say who, but that was given in the PR before my 2nd attempt at FAC. Then, during the 2nd FAC, I was told that quite a bit of the advice given during the PR was bad. That's one reason why I really don't want to go back there. Anyway, Gwynand's removed it. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Link Barrichello the first time in the prose.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Rubens Barrichello spun in the final chicane when he attempted to brake later than team-mate Irvine. Barrichello damaged his car's rear wing during the collision; hitting a wall after the contact. Barrichello retired from the race." - Barrichello x 3 in three sentences - work on it to improve the flow.
 * I've reworded it to: "Rubens Barrichello spun in the final chicane when he attempted to brake later than team-mate Irvine, hitting a wall after the contact. Barrichello retired from the race as his car's rear wing was damaged during the collision." - I still think it needs flow improvements doing to it though. D.M.N. (talk)
 * "Alesi was lapping faster than Schumacher even when Schumacher was on dry tyres." - even though?
 * Changed. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Podium image is lacking a full stop at the end of the caption.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "stop-and-go" or "stop and go" - be consistent.
 * Consistent to "stop-and-go". D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider explaining FIA before using it.
 * Ive just added before: "by the Formula One governing body, the FIA"


 * Funny we intersected a bit here... I just corrected a few of the things you mentioned. Very good overall analysis, I'll try to work in. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good thing - isn't it? :P D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for expanding the lead section
Would it be possible to contrast the fortunes of Williams and McLaren in the lead? We now have a reference for the race being Hill's personal low point of 1995, and as both he and Coulthard retired due to unforced errors and Williams lost the Constructors' Championship, the acute disappointment for the team can be mentioned in the lead. In contrast, McLaren had their most competitive race of the year, as Häkkinen did not have to rely on so many rivals dropping out to finish second (as happened at Monza), and was close to the leaders' pace all weekend. If the lead needs to be expanded further, then I think this would make a suitable addition to it.-- Diniz  (talk)  22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference #21
If a hard-copy reference source is preferable, then AUTOCOURSE has a lap chart which provides the same information on page 222.-- Diniz  (talk)  23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed. Thanks! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do we stand in regards to FA?
Lots of great improvements have been made over the past few weeks, I believe addressing most of the copy editing concerns. The one thing I am unsure of is still how the "blow-by-blow" of the race will read to those unfamiliar with racing. I've become quite comfortable with it now and think it reads fluently and logically, although I remember when I first read it I found it confusing. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's where we've got to since the last FAC: Diff. Some of the problems from the last FAC, as well as prose concerns were sourcing problems, with some sources deemed unreliable. I've removed most of the unreliable sources, see two topics up, but some I am unable to remove. The references from that particular website isn't used much in the article, so I hope that there won't be much of a problem there. I'm not really wanting to nominate it for another FAC right now because I go on holiday a week tomorrow so leaving the FAC in other people's hands probably isn't the best course of action to take and would probably lead to the article failing. I'd be renominating in just over three weeks time (beginning of August) probably as I'll have no internet connection on my travels. D.M.N. (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll see if I can do any touch up in that time period, or respond to people's concerns. I agree, whenever you think its ready, I'll agree to another FAC try. Enjoy your vacation. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)