Talk:BMW M1 Procar Championship/GA1

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

Things that need to be done:
 * Fix any and all fact tags I stuck on the article
 * I took a stab at that one, trying to throw in some references which show the designation of the events as well as what they supported.


 * Too many paragraphs start with the word "the". See if you can't reword the paragraphs for variety.
 * ✅ Tried to fix most of these, one or two remain.


 * Points were awarded to the top ten finishers (20 pts, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1) should be changed to omit the 's.
 * ✅ I think I've reworded it in a better way.


 * See if you can't add wikilinks to some of the paragraphs without them. Don't add links for the sake of doing so, but just take a second look and see if some paragraphs that don't have links can use a few.
 * ✅ Tossed in a few where I could think of them.


 * Check your measurements: Some places you lead with the metric measurements, while others you lead with the american measurements. Example: "28 centimetres (11 in)" compared to "93 miles per hour (311 km/h)". Either lead with metric or US, but pick one and stick with it.
 * ✅ Corrected the kmh/mph


 * Were there any criticisms to the format? If there were any reliable critics that are important enough, please be sure to leave room for their views. (I note this only because I see a total lack of other viewpoints on the procar).
 * The only "criticism" I guess would be that drivers who ran Formula One on Michelin tires were not able to participate because Procar used Goodyear tires (Michelin's rival in F1), but no, I think it'd be difficult to find anything which criticised it as it was so popular but also so short. There is none that I am aware of at the very least.


 * Either link or do not link the dates. November 4, 1231 or November 4, 1231. Pick one, and make it uniform across the whole article. The choice is totally up to you guys, just pick one and stick with over the whole article. See WP:DATE.
 * ✅ I've added links to specific dates and the first instance of individual years.


 * In the last section: revival, watch your tense. You use future tense "will also include a passenger seat..." in the first paragraph then go to past tense discussing race results: "Lauda won the first race held on the Saturday of the Grand Prix,[20] while Neerpasch was able to win the race held on Sunday". If there has already been a race as part of the revival then the future tense "will" is inappropriate.
 * Also in that last quote, which Sunday are you referring to. Do we have a date?
 * ✅ The tense was my mistake, I initially wrote the article before the Revival event took place (and in fact wrote it simply because I had heard of the revival and bothered to actually research it fully). I've fixed the last quote so that it makes more sense, I believe.

Below are semi automated tests that I have run. I run these just to save some time and effort, as computers do a fairly good job at spotting some issues.
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1000 km, use 1000 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1000&amp;nbsp;km.[?]
 * I believe this is a glitch in the automated search, it's picking up "1000 Kilometers of Nürburgring", which actually links to 1000 km Nürburgring.


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 1000 km.
 * See above, it's catching 1000 km Nürburgring.


 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * I'm actually unsure about how to rename the "After Procar" section. I'm open to suggestions.


 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 16 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * ✅ I've taken a stab at removing the numerous "also"s, a bit of a bad habit.


 * Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
 * ✅ Eliminated the "in order to"s.

I think its obvious that this article is on hold for GA. You have done good work, but there are a bunch of fairly minor things that should be done to really make this a good article. :) ——  nix eagle 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered all your points so far, feel free to point out anything else I've missed. The359 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

2
Alright, this is more or less a GA article, some minor faults that I think you should fix before we promote it.
 * "US$60,000" should be . Look for other instances of this. I corrected one myself when I thought there was only one at issue. If you would correct the rest, I'd appreciate it.
 * ✅ I believe there was only one other instance of "US$" and it's been corrected.


 * As far as your "after procar" section, some suggestions: Afterwards, legacy, new beginings. If you can't come up with something, explain why you think it should stay and I think we can ignore this.
 * ✅ I've changed it to "Afterwards", it's no biggie.


 * You are right about the automated search, apologies for making you check that.
 * ✅ No worries, I had seen it happen before in the Peer Review and had taken the time to figure out why.


 * My only real issue (non formatting) is the lack of print sources. If you can find a few, or explain why they can't be found, I'll be satisfied.
 * I personally don't own any automotive or racing books (expensive!), just an odd mix of race programs and magazines, so I don't have any print sources that discuss the M1 or Procar. Unfortunately, a look at WikiProject Motorsport/Library shows that no one has listed any books which discuss 1979/1980 or the BMW Procars specifically.  I have however left messages at WikiProject Motorsport and WikiProject Automobiles to see if there is anyone who might have something to offer. The359 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now done, I've added some references and extra statements from books which are available through Google Books. The359 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good writing, and best of luck :) ——  nix eagle 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have done everything I can think of, the article is well written and covers the topic area well. I really can't think of any FA suggestions beyond attempting to expand the article more, perhaps an additional paragraph in the lead. Consider this promoted to GA. ——  nix eagle 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)