Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1994 San Marino Grand Prix

1994 San Marino Grand Prix
Self-nomination. Article has reached Good Article status and has had all issues raised during a Peer Review addressed. I have checked it against each of the FA criteria and believe it meets them all. I feel it is ready to be considered as a candidate for FA status. Alexj2002 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Support Good work, and I think this can become featured, but it needs some more attention first. (1) First, the article needs to be rewritten slightly to be more accessible to those without a good background in racing.  Specifically, specialized terms (like "Qualified in pole") are used without context, and there is a general lack of wikilinks to general topics on car racing.  For instance, there should be a link to Formula one in the lead.  Terms, not just proper nouns, should have wikilinks when there's an article on them.  The introduction of all those names was a bit overwhelming to me.  I would suggest, since the race results are given at the bottom anyway, not to list the drivers who merely "won points" in the lead.  (2) General writing issues: the word "Imola" didn't have any context when I read it in the article: it never said the race took place in Imola, except in the infobox.  Also, I feel like the word "whilst" is being pounded into my head in certain sections, and I find it very odd: to me (I realize this may be a British/American English thing), "whilst" is evocative of old language, often used to make something sound more refined.  The British/American usage aside, I think this indicates that the sentence structure is a little too repetitive in the article.  (3) Images: I find the images somewhat unsatisfactory -- the two maps are good, but the screenshot of Senna's crash is terrible, I can't make out anything, and it seems like there are other windows in the shot that aren't relevant.  There are plenty of other things that could be illustrated with images here: a real picture of the racetrack, or the trophy, a picture of some of the key players (especially Senna).  This may be the hardest of my comments to address, but I really do think it's critical: in a subject like this we should have pictures.  (4) Minor points: why "legacy of the race"?  Seems sort of heavy-handed; why not simply "legacy" or "aftermath"?  Similarly, why is it "Classification" rather than "results"?  Finally, I don't understand some of the stuff written in the notes section: those should be incorporated into an actual paragraph.  Okay, that's all.  I'll be glad to support if these points are addressed.  Mango juice talk 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for your lengthy list of suggestions, you've raised quite a few issues that didn't come up in peer review so I'll try and work on the weaknesses you suggested. Classification is used because that's what was decided by the Formula One Wikiproject (here:WikiProject Formula One/Example race report) so standard amongst all F1 race reports and is also the official term used when the results are shown at the end of each race on the TV. Alexj2002 09:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added wikilinks to most of the technical terms and/or tried to explain them better in the article. I've put Imola into context in the opening sentence and replaced 7 of the 8 whilst's in the article (yeah there did seem to be a lot in there). The points scorers have been removed from the lead. The notes section has been re-done and the "Legacy of the race" heading has been changed to "Post race". I've left classification in, as it's the term used by the sport's governing body, the FIA: . The only thing left to address now is the pictures. It's quite difficult finding a suitable freely licenced image. There are pictures of the drivers available, but wearing a different team's overalls and I think this would be confusing/misleading. I'll keep checking commons and a few other places and see if any suitable ones come up. Alexj2002 18:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, I agree that all my objections have been dealt with except for the pictures. At the very least, the trial picture should be edited so we can see just the crash occurring: that picture is just bad as it is.  Mango juice talk 10:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the trial picture and I've instead put in photos of some of the drivers involved (Barrichello and Senna) which I believe are suitable. Alexj2002 10:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's better. I still think the article could be better illustrated, but I think this meets the FA guidelines now.  Changed to support.  BTW, I think "not guilty" is preferable over "not-guilty". Mango juice talk 11:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: A memorable Grand Prix and a great article!--Skully Collins 12:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support with comments. Firstly, this may be a matter of personal preference but low ordinal numbers look better written out, for example "third" is better than "3rd". Secondly, an important source is not referred to in the footnotes and possibly has not been checked for important information: Professor Sid Watkins' book "Life at the limit" (ISBN 0330351397). Thirdly, as I remember, the BBC's own camera at the Grand Prix was an innovation - they had only just managed to persuade their bosses to allow them to have a camera, and San Marino 1994 was the first Grand Prix at which it appeared. This is probably worth mentioning. David | Talk 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Comment I thought something simular with the BBC camera. It would have made sense, seems as it was the first GP of the season to be held in Europe. If a source could be found, it can be included in the article. Alexj2002 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to remember where I saw this - might have been Murray Walker's autobiography. David | Talk 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object : Is this really how these words are spelled: "tyre", "kerb", and "nosecone"? What's a "chicane" and a "paddock"?  Is it "pit-lane" or "pitlane"? Did anything else happen with Érik Comas? The prose needs some work as well; sentences like "Pedro Lamy, who started behind him, was unsighted and hit the back of Lehto's car" ("unsighted"? even if we call that a real word, who was doing the seeing?) and "There was to be one more incident, when" (all of this can be deleted without effect). Overall though, not bad. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  23:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, that is how those words are spelt! In UK English anyway, which is what most of the F1 articles are written in (longstanding convention!). Use of UK spellings is, of course, not a reason for objecting (unless usage is inconsistent, of course). 'Unsighted' is fairly common journalistic usage for precisely this situation - meaning that the person who was unsighted cannot see what is in front of him. However, that can be changed fairly simply to something more easily understood by all. I'll have a stab at it now, as well as clarifying some of the specialist terms you mention. 4u1e 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - done. Better? Open to suggestions if not! 4u1e 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see anything about Érik Comas&mdash;did he hit Senna's car? Or almost hit it? I'll support once I'm done with the copyedit, but this looks good. --Spangineeres (háblame)  05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That I don't remember, I'm afraid. I think probably not, it's probably just that it's completely unacceptable to send a car out under red flags - a really big no-no because of the danger to the marshals. Anyone got the reference for this bit? --4u1e 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No he didn't hit Senna's car because Senna's car was off the track. He reached the corner where Senna's crash had taken place however before stopping and there were several medical cars he came close to hitting. There is actually a video of this on Youtube: . Alexj2002 12:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That part feels a little disconnected; it seems like the story is going to tell us that Comas smashed into Senna causing even more problems. A brief phrase clarifying that nothing actually came of it would be good to add.  One more thing:
 * "The incident brought out the safety car, which picked the field up at the end of the pit lane after the debris on the start/finish line and during this period tyre temperatures dropped." An incident can't really bring anything out; the safety car is responding to the incident.  What does "picked the field up" mean?  And what on earth does it have to do with tyre temperatures?  This is sort of explained in the following sentence, but I get the impression that one needs to understand the function of a safety car to understand what this is saying (and I don't). --Spangineeres  (háblame)  16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the article the word safety car in the section you quoted is Wikilinked to the Safety Car article. I'll have a go at rewording the other bits. Alexj2002 18:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Spangineer - I linked it after he raised the point!--4u1e 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've clarified the Comas incident, and reworded the safety car bit to clarify a few things. Alexj2002 10:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Object—Nowhere near a "professional" standard of writing as required. A particular problem throughout is the underuse of commas that almost all readers would agree would make it easier to read. Here are examples:
 * "The race was eventually won by Michael Schumacher giving him a maximum 30 points after 3 rounds." (Schumacher,)
 * "Schumacher said however in the press conference" --> "Schumacher said, however, in the press conference", but smoother to start with "However, Schumacher ...".

But that's not all. Here are examples from the lead.
 * "It was the 3rd race of the 1994 Formula One season, and the first race of the season." 3rd/first—choose one form or the other and be consistent. Spelling out for less than 10 is standard.
 * "The race weekend was marred by the deaths of two drivers and numerous other accidents and injuries, and was described by BBC Television commentator Murray Walker as "the blackest day for Grand Prix racing that I can remember".[1] Austrian Roland Ratzenberger and three-time world champion Ayrton Senna were the two drivers who lost their lives, Ratzenberger during a qualifying session and Senna during the race." Why not treat the "two drivers" all at once, and relocate the other info ("other accidents", "BBC") after this?
 * "It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, and many track layouts and car designs were changed." Keep the grammar consistent for our poor readers: "It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, and the changing of many track layouts and car designs."
 * "Since the race, numerous efforts have been made to slow Formula One cars down and new circuits such as Bahrain International Circuit designed to incorporate large run-off areas to slow cars before they collide with a wall, should the driver lose control." Not a grammatical sentence, and short of commas.
 * "to conclude including"—it's what Fowler called a "jingle", even with a comma after "conclude". And why not remove "to conclude" anyway? Makes no difference to the sense.
 * "following the original not guilty verdict." I think that all English speakers would want a hyphenated "not-guilty" here. Tony 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I'll take your suggestions onboard and improve the article. The only point I disagree with is your final one. I think not guilty is the correct usage (without hyphen). The Wikipedia article Acquittal uses no hyphen, but that can't be regarded as a reputable source. I believe however that the usage of "not guilty" by organisations such as the BBC, CNN and the UK Government's Criminal Justice System  would mean that the hyphen is not require, and definately shows that not all English speakers would want a hyphen. Alexj2002 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've changed the points you brought up. If you want to reword/change any parts of the writing you believe are weak in order to improve it to what you'd regard as a "professional standard" that'd be great. Alexj2002 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right about the hyphen. I looked it up on the phrase checker and found only one instance with hyphen (an American one, at that). I'd use it, but you don't have to. Tony 05:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Object at present. I'd like to see a picture at the top of the page - either a photo of the actual grand prix (which doesn't appear anywhere in the article at present) or a larger map of the circuit. The pictures of Senna and Barrichello aren't put in context - were they even taken around the same time as the grand prix. Maybe it's just my eyes, but the writing on both the maps showing the location of the crashes seems slightly small. Is there anyway to graphically show the change in design of Imola after 1994. But other than that, it is well written and well referenced in my opinion and close to being FA standard. Trebor 10:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've altered to captions to give more context - more what you meant? The pictures are not from the time of the GP, but I know Alex has put much effort into locating pictures with suitable licensing and it appears that better are not available. 4u1e
 * I've had another trawl through Wikicommons, Flickr etc and can find nothing usable of the circuit itself. There is a diagram showing the circuit changes, which I have added, but it presumably suffers from the same size problems as the others. 4u1e
 * Sorry, I realised later my response was rather harsh. I'm neutral at present - I think the article looks slighly odd without a picture from the race, but if nothing usable is available then obviously it can't be improved. You're right, I don't think the map of the circuit changes adds much as it's quite hard to see what's changed. I do think it is written and referenced well, it's just the slight incongruence of the images to that (which is not your fault and I'm sure you've done your best). Trebor 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I could easily increase the size of the text in the maps if it's too small. Just let me know. Alexj2002 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just the "Villeneuve" and "Tamburello" which are slightly hard to read on my screen. Trebor 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've increased the size of both. Alexj2002 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that's better. By the way, it's your call as to whether the map of circuit changes is worth putting in at the bottom. Now it's there, I'm not sure how much it improves the article.Trebor 18:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Just realised I never actually added my support. Good treatment of one of the most important (in terms of worldwide news coverage at time) sporting events of the last 20 years at least. Good work has been done to make the article accessible to non-motorsport fans. 4u1e 16:30, 24 October 2006(UTC)

Strong Support A fantastic article, very detailed, a pretty concise adaptation of a very dark weekend. I don't believe it to be over complicated either, the terms mentioned are not excessively jargonistic. These terms are easily picked up if not previously known, to change them would be dumbing down a well written article. Gdkh 12:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. There is problem with note 5. It should be fixed! Take care of this minor things!--Yannismarou 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed - thanks. It's actually ref 4 again. Ref 7 doesn't seem to be quite finished either though - we'll get that fixed. --4u1e 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)