Talk:2008 Hungarian Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the article once so far. Here are my initial thoughts.

Background
 * "The teams, also known as "constructors", were..." Not sure about phrasing here. Maybe just say "constructors" and link it? Or: "the teams (constructors)". Also, 2 "teams" in close proximity.
 * I am hesitant to change this one, because the phrasing of the first two sentences in this paragraph is identical to all of the Grand Prix articles which have reached GA or FA status.-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but personally I wouldn't like it if I was reviewing for FA. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "ahead of Ferrari team-mates": I know it states that Hamilton drove for McLaren, but this sentence makes it seem like Massa and Raikkonen were Hamilton's team mates. Maybe "ahead of Ferrari's Felipe Massa..." or "ahead of Ferrari drivers..." but this means there are a lot of "drivers" in this bit.
 * How about just "the Ferrari team-mates"?-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "the battle for fourth place between Toyota, Red Bull and Renault was covered by two points": battle is possibly too dramatic. If it is necessary to cover 4th place (is it?) maybe state the distance from 3rd placed McLaren and then use the "covered by two points"?
 * Done.-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Jerez testing is too detailed in an article on the Grand Prix. Could it be summarised a little more. I can see the need to give the fastest cars, but I think the KERS stuff (although obviously significant) does not belong in this article as it had no bearing on the race. In fact, I would cut anything which has no direct bearing on this race, but I am open to discussion.
 * I've cut the KERS material down, as it is already included in the Regenerative brake article. Although the testing information is not integral to the article, I believe the brief paragraph it is now summarised in helps to give an interesting impression of the background to the event.--  Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is "nosecone" one word or two?
 * I've always seen it written down as one word in the specialist press, but our article disagrees!-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to mention the white stripe on the option tyre?
 * As with the first paragraph in this section, this paragraph about the tyre regulations is used almost word-for-word in other articles, where there are more photos of the cars in action on the different tyres. I suppose it's not too important in this article, as there is a lack of photos from the event, although for the sake of completeness I think it would be a shame to leave it out.--  Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let it go if you like. But I don't think it adds to the article, and seems superfluous. Again, might not go down too well at FA! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Practice and qualifying
 * "...two on Friday, and a third on Saturday. The Friday morning session took place from 10:00 to 11:30 local time, and the afternoon session lasted from 14:00 to 15:30. The third session was held between 11:00 and 12:00 on Saturday morning." Very wordy: could it be merged? For example, "two on Friday from 10:00 to 11:30 and 14:00 to 15:30 local time, and a third on Saturday morning between 11:00 and 12:00."
 * Done.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You give the temperatures for practices and throughout the weekend. I'm OK with this for GA but if you take this to FAC, you need to justify it a bit more. How does this temperature affect the cars? Was it good or bad? Otherwise, it just looks like a weather report (which I appreciate it isn't!).
 * Hmmm, I'll have to think about that more when and if it goes to FAC.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "set the pace": explain more.
 * Done.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "heat his tyres sufficiently due to traffic" This needs explaining to the non-specialist. What effect does heating the tyres have? And "traffic" may be confusing. Can it be linked?
 * Done.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Crucially, both McLaren drivers had used one fewer set of the Soft tyres—which were expected to be more favourable in the race than the Super Softs—than Ferrari during the qualifying session, suggesting that Hamilton and Kovalainen might have had a tyre performance advantage in the race. This was because the Soft tyre had turned out to be the fastest tyre choice over the course of a single lap, despite the theoretical performance advantage of the Super Soft; Ferrari used an additional set of Soft tyres to McLaren before realising this was the case" Wordy. Can it be cut a little? Also, it seems from this that only a certain number of tyres could be used in the race. Was this so? (I can't remember) If so, it needs spelling out I think.
 * Honestly, I can't think of a good way to cut it. There was a limit on tyres in place, but the 2008 regulations have been taken down from the FIA website, and I can't remember it.  I'll ask around on a forum, as I'm sure the pdf file will still be on-line somewhere.--  Midgrid  (talk)  18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tyre limitation and reference added.-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Race
 * "out-dragging Kovalainen off the starting grid": outdragging is jargon.
 * Done.-- Midgrid  (talk)  18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "At the completion of the first lap, Massa led from Hamilton, Kovalainen, Glock, Kubica, Alonso, Räikkönen, Webber, Trulli, Piquet, Coulthard, Heidfeld, Barrichello, Button, Vettel, Bourdais, Rosberg, Nakajima, Fisichella and Sutil" Very long list of drivers here. Is it necessary, and if so can it be phrased more effectively?
 * In lieu of a lap chart, I think it's important to establish the running order so that I don't have to keep referring to the positions concerned for every pass or incident. I would argue that having a couple of lists saves space elsewhere in the race report.--  Midgrid  (talk)  19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Glock lost a few seconds during his pit stop when the fuel rig failed to connect properly with his car, but did not lose any positions.[22]" If it didn't affect the race, does it need mentioning?
 * Removed.-- Midgrid  (talk)  18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "By the end of lap 26, Massa, ... and Sutil." Why list the order here, and same point as above listing drivers.
 * This was after the first round of stops has concluded; I've spelled it out in the article....-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto "At the conclusion of lap 59..."
 * ...and this is after all of the scheduled stops were completed.-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "clear air" is jargon.
 * Done.-- Midgrid  (talk)  18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "was the first time that a car bearing the number 23 had won a race since Jim Clark at the 1964 Belgian Grand Prix." Is this important? Seems a statistical freak which is not really important.
 * Removed.-- Midgrid  (talk)  18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This section drags a little due to the long lists of positions. If these came out or were shortened, it would read quite nicely.
 * See above. :) I think that it's important to let the reader know the running order, and this is the most effective (although perhaps not the most elegant) way of doing it.--  Midgrid  (talk)  19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-race
 * "The race remains Kovalainen's sole Formula One win to date." Needs a ref, and probably a date ("as of August 2010").
 * Done.-- Midgrid  (talk)  18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any other issues: links, sources, images, etc seem fine, but I'll have another look in the next day or two. Should pass once the points above have been checked. Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again, and thank you for the review! I'll get to work as soon as possible.--  Midgrid  (talk)  19:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone over it again and no other issues. I'll put it on hold now for a week, but let me know if you need longer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A week should be fine. Thanks again for the review; do you have any articles on review at the moment?--  Midgrid  (talk)  13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I think I've addressed (or commented on) all of these issues. Over to you! :) --  Midgrid  (talk)  19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

All good now. I still don't like the long lists of drivers, but if they are necessary, I suppose this is the best way. I would say that it is not necessary to give the entire field, but that's just my view. Watch out for it at FA though. Happy to pass, though. Well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)