Template:Did you know nominations/Lavaggi LS1

Lavaggi LS1

 * ... that the Lavaggi LS1 (pictured) was the first Le Mans Prototype to be designed and built in Monte Carlo?

Created/expanded by Lukeno94 (talk). Self nominated at 22:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article was new as of nomination date and meets length guidelines. QPQ not needed as it is the author's fourth self-nom. Image checks out. I have two concerns. The first is about the wording of the hook compared with the cited source, which says, "The car, a Cosworth V8-powered LMP1 sports prototype, is the first of its kind to have been designed and built in Monte Carlo". I'm not a racing expert; can you convince me that this means it was the first Le Mans Prototype? Also, you'd have to change the location in the hook (and in the article) to Monte Carlo (yes, yes, I know that's in Monaco, but verifiability demands it). My second concern is that several of the online sources don't seem to be reliable, and if they're not then the article is in breach of Verifiability, a core content policy. Mulsanne's Corner is self-published and hence not reliable. Racingsportscars.com appears to rely on contributions by anonymous volunteers; the lack of editorial oversight makes it questionable as a source. I am not convinced of (but open to persuasion on) the reliability of Ultimatecarpage.com and Planetlemans.com. Crash.net, the source for the hook, appears reliable. Lagrange613 00:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg - The first to have been designed in Monte Carlo is not the same as the first to have been designed in Monaco. Monte Carlo is a mere province/district. The hook is also too much of a close paraphrase of the source. The article also requires some clean up. Uses of however, despite etc., seem awkward and essay'ish' to me. EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Briefly returning from my break to address this. All of the sources that you question are reliable; Racingsportscars.com has been used in GAs, as have Planetlemans, Mulsanne's Corner and Ultimatecarpage (although Mulsanne's Corner was something written with citations from reliable sources; the bit you're querying is directly quoting Lavaggi, so it is also fine). The first car of its type is pretty clearly going to mean it is the first LMP to be built in Monte Carlo; it would be possible that it could also mean it was the first sports prototype to be built there (but as that is a much vaguer term, and harder to verify, it's safer to go with LMP - and LMP may mean more to people these days anyway). I disagree with the notion that the hook is too closely paraphrased, and that the article appears essay-like; again, there are GAs I've been involved in that have more than one usage of the word "however" in, and the writing style of an article is more important at GA and DYK. I'm not going to stop anyone improving anything, and am going back on my break for a few more days. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing Monaco to Monte Carlo. I'll AGF on the interpretation of the text. I agree that the hook is not too closely paraphrased and that the article's tone is appropriate. The Mulsanne's Corner citation is still out; a self-published source does not inherit reliability from its own sources. As to the other websites, I'm going to need more than an assertion of reliability and an appeal to unspecified other articles. Since you don't seem prepared to engage further now, I've opened a thread at WP:RSN. Feel free to add your two cents once you're back. Lagrange613 19:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The only participant at RSN besides you and me has been Jaggee, who was just trying to get other people to appreciate the importance of the question. I thought we'd have it settled in a few days at most; had I known it would be over a week without any response I would not have bothered. I regret holding up the DYK over this, but at least now we know not to waste our time at RSN in the future. I'm going to IAR and say that Racingsportscars.com, Planetlemans.com, and Ultimatecarpage.com appear reliable for the information they're providing to the article. Mulsanne's Corner is still out: while Fuller may be a smart aerodynamicist, he is not a racing industry journalist. Lagrange613 15:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I'm glad we've reached some kind of compromise here; I've rarely been to RSN in the past, myself, so in a way it was good to go digging. Mulsanne's Corner is only used for this one thing though; is it necessary for it to be removed for the DYK to pass? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the only thing standing in the way. Lagrange613 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, give me a little while and I'll sort it out. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. Thanks for your patience. Lagrange613 16:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment/Request: Is it a good idea to crop the suggested pic so that the car would appear bigger when the pic appears on MainPage at 100x100px? The pic is currently showing too much gray and green, and not enough of the nice car, imo. --PFHLai (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine by me, and I may well do so later if I remember, and if someone doesn't beat me to it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 02:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I kinda feared, it looks worse when cropped by me and when rendered at 100x100 - can someone do a better job please? If not, it's no big deal to leave out the image :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)