Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , I've just done a preliminary look through this article so far, rather than a full GA review, but my instant reaction is that this is some way off GA standard. The problem comes from the several sections made up entirely of lists. This does not comply with WP:PROSE. Moreover, the sections currently read as a sequence of disjointed facts: they are far from "clear and concise" prose (WP:GA?). I think this article could be brought to GA standard without too much work, but these sections need integrating into a clear narrative. Not every fact needs to go in: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd like to hear your response before I go further into the review. Relentlessly (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have to consult my F1 Wikiproject colleagues about this because the article structure has been agreed upon by consensus and in use for ages. I'm not convinced the list are indiscriminate. Tvx1 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently sections like "Team changes" and "Sporting regulations" are a disconnected set of facts, not grouped or explained in any way. Why not have a paragraph that deals with safety changes and another that deals with changes to penalties? It can be written in a much more engaging way. Relentlessly (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points here. In fact, I've had my reservations about those sections for years now. I always felt they became too technical and too summarized. Tvx1 11:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, . I have converted the list to prose. What do you think now? Tvx1 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks much better. I'll try to review it fully tomorrow. Relentlessly (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having taken just a quick look at it, I think the edits to the regulations section are an improvement in format and readability alike. With the team and driver changes, I am not so sure. Will have a closer look tomorrow. Thanks for the work, ! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll will leave for tomorrow then. Tvx1 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I did not get around to this today, I will try to take a closer look tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, . As pointed out below, we have a week to fix the issues. Tvx1 20:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a couple of comments below. A general comment on the team and driver changes though: I preferred the old way here. Not just because it delivers consistency with other season articles, but also because it is easier to find specific teams and drivers for the reader. And relevant changes were grouped here before the change, so the argument that they were "disconnected" does not really hold up for me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Review

I have done various copyedits. Please review and, if necessary, revert them.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments


 * "The following teams and drivers took part in the 2015 Formula One World Championship." This is a one-sentence paragraph that feels unnecessary. I think it could be deleted. A table caption would be appropriate.
 * "A number of team changes were noted prior to the start of the season." Surely this can be "There were a number of team changes prior..."
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "This ended a 20-year involvement of Renault with the Enstone-based team, after being an engine supplier to Benetton since 1995, and being the owner of the team from 2002 to 2010." No citation.
 * ✅ Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alonso's return to McLaren was remarkable, following the 2007 fall-out. Perhaps worth commenting on? There was loads in the media about it.
 * How long did Vettel spend with Red Bull and how long with the development program?
 * Regarding the above two bullets. Is it really that important to go into so much detail on those drivers in this article? Is it really that relevant to an article about the 2015 World Championship. Isn't the requested information better suited for those drivers' articles? Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would take a sentence or less, so it's not a lot. It's not necessary in either case, though I think it would make the point about Vettel significantly clearer. Relentlessly (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A sentence on Vettel would be OK, but we should be careful with a sentence on Alonso's falling out of 2007. We should avoid making implications that come from overblown media reports. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided the requested information for Vettel. Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It feel odd to speak of Bianchi "relinquishing" his seat, given that he was in a long-term coma at the time. Can I suggest "Manor Marussia also had two new drivers: Max Chilton [...] while while Bianchi was in a coma at the start of the season and ultimately died from injuries sustained at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix."
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The following nineteen Grands Prix took place in 2015:" As above, a table caption would be better.
 * "Calendar changes" could also be prose, not bullets. One paragraph could deal with the Mexican Grand Prix, another the German GP fiasco, and another the American, Indian and Korean GPs.
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The "weight and bodywork" section could do with some explanations of why changes were made, especially the FRIC, weight and intrusion panels parts. Just a sentence to give some context to the uninitiated reader.
 * ✅ by Zwerg Nase. Tvx1 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "The replacement of a complete power unit no longer resulted in a penalty" Does this mean "The replacement of a complete power unit no longer in itself resulted in a penalty"? Surely you couldn't replace the entire unit and not get a penalty.
 * ✅ Of course one can replace a whole power unit without receiving a penalty. You are allowed to use four of them per season, after all. However, once you exceed that penalties applied. Since 2015 they counted the number of individual components one used a penalties were applied per component used in excess of the allowance. The replacement of a whole power unit would this simply increase the totals of the different component used and penalties would then be applied if necessary. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Large sections of the sporting regulations presumably refer to possibilities that never happened, but the way they are presented suggests they were regular occurrences. I've tried to make it a bit more conditional, but it could do with wording that suggests these are new rules rather than concrete actions.
 * ✅ I tweaked the description of rule changes which were rarely or even not at all called into use. 10-second-penalties and power unit change penalties were a regelar occurrence (McLaren amassed 20+ grid penalties nearly every race) so I left those like they were. Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You have a long sentence about what happens if there were varying numbers of cars in qualifying, but this surely never happened, so is entirely theoretical and, IMO, unnecessary.
 * An article should, if possible, list all the relevant regulations. And it indeed happened several times that a driver was unable to take part in qualifying due to injuries in free practice, maybe not in 2015 itself, but it is definitely relevant in general. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course the last races of 2014 saw different entry list sizes with neither Caterham nor Marussia entering, or both entering or one of them entering. Tvx1 17:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be all corrected if the whole passage were written in a more conditional way. It currently reads as if all these regulations were regularly called into use. Relentlessly (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "On doctor's advice" presumably should be "on doctors' advice"?
 * ✅ I changed the word completely, to avoid confusion with the university degree. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Alonso was ultimately cleared to race" The word "ultimately" is a little over-used in this article. Unnecessary here.
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "prompting the team to continue to press their frustrations with Renault" – what does "press" mean here?
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Several paragraphs in "Opening rounds" without any citations.
 * I can't work out the basis for which teams have their progress described and which don't. As one example, Sauber aren't mentioned in the whole season summary except for their legal dispute.
 * That is indeed a problem. For Sauber for instance, we could mention that they started the season strongly, but then faded. If we find a good source for that, the results are not really enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added something about Sauber. Tvx1 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "having amassed a fifty-two point cushion over Ferrari after the first four races" That was said in literally the previous sentence.
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The entire "European and Canadian rounds" has only one fairly minor citation. Ditto "Asian, Russian, and American rounds".
 * "team miscues" What are these?
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "FIA Pole Trophy" First time it's been mentioned. If it's important, it should have been introduced earlier.
 * It's a minor side competition. It's mentioned in the infobox as well. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but if it's important enough to mention who won it, it's important enough to mention what he had to do to win it. Relentlessly (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is actually my fault, since I wrote that paragraph. A quick explanation of what those awards actually constitute would be good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The legal battle between Lotus and Pic has yet to be publicly resolved" Still? If so, use, please.
 * Kinda done. It appears to me that the matter was resolved when Lotus ceased to exist. But I cannot find a source specifically stating that. I have therefore rephrased the section and added sources for the partial resolvement of the issue when the cars were not impounded. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a variety of citation styles. Compare the various different ways autosport.com is cited, for example.


 * I'm unsure about F1 Fanatic as a reliable source, especially as there are certainly plenty of reliable sources for the relevant material.
 * I'm not sure about its' reliability either, but some insist we must use it. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see that for information that's not provided anywhere else. I don't think there's anything in this article where that's true, though. Relentlessly (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a big fan of F1Fanatic myself, I admit. But as far as I can see, with them having multiple contributors, they also meet the relevant conditions to qualify as a RS objectively. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a bit more to do here than I had originally thought. This is on hold for a week, but if you need longer that's OK: just let me know. Relentlessly (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thing: We need to have a look at the reference section. Many sources are in an inconsistent format, especially concerning autosport.com. Also, all newspaper names should be in italics. I'll try to tackle some of the problems above if I find the time this weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Concerning Tvx1's post on my talk page: I can surely do some work on the article, but probably not before the weekend. Would it be OK for you to prolong our edit period to get this to GA? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Let's say a week today, 2 May? WP:NODEADLINE, after all. Relentlessly (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, with the Russian Grand Prix and finishing up Bahrain, I didn't get around to do anything with this article. Will you be able to make some changes over the next few days? I am not sure if I can before Ascension weekend., any chance to give us a couple more days? Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't want to keep it open forever, so I'll say Sunday 8 May as a deadline for now. Relentlessly (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did another few, but I really need your help with the issues with the race report section since you're much more adept at that as well as for finding a way to include the Pole Trophy. Tvx1 11:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Zwerg Nase, Relentlessly, it's now May 20, well beyond the offered extension. It's probably time to close this, unless Zwerg Nase can do those necessary updates right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, completely forgot about this while doing the more recent race reports. I'll try it tomorrow, if I don't, feel free to close. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not quite done yet. If you give me another day, I should be able to get it done. Also: I think Relentlessly is not on Wikipedia at the moment, so he cannot close the review anyway, as far as I am aware... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're making good progress, Zwerg Nase. Keep at it. With luck, Relentlessly will return soon after you're done, so the review can continue, and soon conclude. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now archived all the refs that weren't archived yet and in the process retrieved some dead links. Tvx1 23:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I am constantly trying to add new sources. For some statements though, I have difficulties, mainly the very general ones like "McLaren reliability improved". While those statements are usually true, few sources seem to bother making those statements. Maybe you can also try to find some if you have the time? Two set of eyes see more than one... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeking status report
Zwerg Nase, Tvx1, where does this review stand now? Have you addressed all the issues that Relentlessly highlighted? If so, we'll need to find a new reviewer to finish this off, since Relentlessly hasn't edited on Wikipedia in two months. If there are still issues remaining, I think it should be closed (recalling Zwerg Nase's "feel free to close" comment from May 20), which I am prepared to do; it can always be renominated when whatever is outstanding has been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think all the issues should have been adressed.Tvx1 00:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I completely forgot about this. It really is a shame that is inactive, he was such a good contributor... I sadly have to disagree with . The season report is still missing a lot of references.  Do you think we can make a ref-attack here over the weekend together? I am not sure if I will get it done by myself in just 1-2 days, considering there are also some current race reports to take care of. Otherwise, I'd say close for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll do what I can. Tvx1 09:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Let me know which section(s) you'll tackle, then I'll do the others :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on,, I thought only the season report section needed more refs? Maybe we should list the sections which need more here and then divide over the two of us.Tvx1 12:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I see, it's both Opening Rounds and European and Canadian rounds. Which one do you want to do? Often, you can use references from the race reports and copy and paste them here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll do opening rounds then. Tvx1 14:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

European and Canadian rounds should now be good to go, please evaluate (whoever feels responsible for this review now). I tried my best to put proper sources on every statement. The way it is written, a lot of it might sound like original research at first glance ("largest margin", "retired nine out of ten" and so forth), but it to me is simple deduction, not OR. Still, again, I tried to put the best sources I could find everywhere. There are a lot of archived links to the Drivers' and Constructors' standings now, to an archived link at the relevant time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Zwerg Nase, I see three items that haven't been addressed from the ones Relentlessly originally mentioned. The first two have to do with a preference to have the one-sentence paragraph before tables replaced with a table header. The other is regarding an addition to the "weight and bodywork" section, which apparently still needs fixing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the Weight and Bodywork section, adding explanation about the raised security around the drivers' heads and the weight. The suspension bit seems sufficiently explained to me as it is. As for the table captions, I feel that this should not be changed, since the way it is is our convention in the WikiProject. No matter how one stands on the matter, I do not feel it should stand in the way of a promotion to GA, considering that the hurdle should not be that high and the issue does not really concern the overall quality of the article but rather aestetic concerns., can you get the Opening Rounds session done soon? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have finally found some time to add the refs to the opining rounds section. I think it should be ok now. I agree with my colleague about the table captions. Tvx1 16:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Tvx1, I was surprised, and a bit alarmed, to see that you deleted the accessdate parameter from a large number of reference citations. The accessdate parameter tells the date that the person originally obtained the information from the reference, and is important, since pages can later be updated. It is not the same as the archivedate parameter, which simply says when the web page was archived, not when it was reviewed for the article; both should be included even if, coincidentally, they are the same date. Please restore this useful information. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this, access date is not required for linked documents that do not change. A properly archived link is a snapshot of how a certain web page look on a certain date and time and therefore will not change, making access date redundant. Something completely different, I noticed that ref #106 does not contain an url at all., any idea where that came from. Tvx1 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it's because whoever added the ref entered the quotation in there, which does not work with the template? But we should definitely change that. I do not think we need the quotation in the citation. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tvx1, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted what the citation style says about the access date field. Since the main URL-linked document can change regardless of the archived snapshot, and there is no evidence one way or the other that the document was accessed before or after the archive date, the access date is still required to say when the information was taken from the online page. The example they give at that link for when an access date is not required is of a published journal in hardcopy only: since it cannot change, the date it was accessed is irrelevant. (The same would apply to a printed book that isn't available on line.) Further, the archivedate is sometimes well after the accessdate, so the archived version could be different due to changes subsequent to the date the information was accessed: for example, you have articles written on March 15, accessed on March 21, but not archived until October 29. For that matter, you also have the reverse situation, where the article was archived prior to being accessed and may not reflect subsequent changes (written March 14, archived March 15, but not accessed until March 21). I suggest you refrain from removing valid accessdate fields from any URL-based reference in future, and restore the ones you removed here: it is and remains useful information. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any way to resolve your deadlock? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Awaiting a response from Tvx1 at this point, Zwerg Nase. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, you are thinking too much into this. Accessdates and archivedates should always be the same, because it's the archived copy which is assessed to support the content. When including an archived link that will be by default one is depicted to when clicking on the ref in question. So, in you first example the accessdate should be updated to the one of the archivedate, at which point it becomes redundant and in the second example a new archived copy should be made and used on the day of assessment at which point the accessdate becomes again redundant. I'm dead certain that I read somewhere that these parameters should not be used simultaneously or else I would not have been removing them in the first place., the most important thing about that ref is that we find that missing url, but I don't know where. Tvx1 17:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Found it, fixed it. To the topic at hand: I do believe that archived links should have accessdates as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you base yourself on any guideline or policy?Tvx1 00:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather base it on personal experience, that I do not always archive links myself but find some from earlier dates, then it is still a valid point of information when I accessed it, because otherwise the reader does not know wether or not I could have been aware of more recent versions. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case the absence of a few accessdates should not by any means be the deciding factor in granting an article Good Article status. Tvx1 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It was a pain in the ass, but I have now checked all refs without accessdate parameters and added today's date everywhere. , maybe we can now end the review odyssey and pass it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset wanted me to take a look, so I'll do a read-through and either note any final issues or just pass it if I find nothing of note. Wizardman 15:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only thing I ended up finding originally was numbers over 10 being spelled out (i.e. twenty-two, twenty-four). I always thought that was against MOSNUM but that appears to be allowed, though it does look a bit off to me. It's a minor thing though and I'm not gonna let a nitpick hold this up any longer, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman  16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wizardman. I appreciate you taking the time to take this one on. Incidentally, I tend to prefer writing out numbers up through 100, so I'm with MOSNUM on allowing it, though I'll naturally go with whatever style is already established in an article. (I've had to point out this particular feature of MOSNUM to other reviewers, who were asking for "eleven" to be written as "11" and suchlike despite consistent usage.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)