Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008.

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

 *  Nominator(s): D.M.N. (talk) 
 * previous FAC (00:07, 17 May 2008)

I nominated this article once in March, and again in May, with both FAC's failing due to a number of issues, mostly concerning reliable sources. I have removed the un-reliable sources from the article, and added more reliable sources such as books. I've also tried to tighten up the prose in places so that the text flows better. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

More to come later. —Giggy 10:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definitely looking better than last time, thanks for continuing your work on it. —Giggy 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please delink the dates... per recent changes to WP:DATE date linking is discouraged (as it doesn't do anything beneficial for the majority of readers). I have a script to do it if you like. —Giggy 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I haven't unlinked the date in the infobox as that's how it's formatted in Infobox Grand Prix race report . I've tried changing it, but failed D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "and Johnny Herbert third in the other Benetton" - a layman wouldn't know that they are only allowed to 2 cars per team. Just say that he was in a Benetton. —Giggy 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to "and Johnny Herbert third in a Benetton" - D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher won his ninth race of the season" - you've already said he won, it seems slightly redundant. (So reword it a bit, I'm thinking.) —Giggy 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it to "Schumacher's win was his ninth of the season". Does that eek out the problem of it being redundant as such? D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph of the lead should go before mention of the constructor's championship and other post race stuff... maybe even switch the 2nd and 3rd paras? —Giggy 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I've swapped the two. It actually flows better now that it's like in chronological order, I guess. D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "there was speculation he was to be dropped by Williams for the 1996 season, with Heinz-Harald Frentzen" - not clear... was Frentzen to replace him, or something like that? —Giggy 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, correct. I've reworded it to "there was speculation that Williams were going to replace him with Heinz-Harald Frentzen moving to the team for the 1996 season." - so that Frentzen is introduced earlier. D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "posting a time of 1:40.694." - I think you should use the fastest time if you have to quote one... —Giggy 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've reworded it to "Schumacher was fastest in the first session, posting a time of 1:40.410, two tenths of a second quicker than Häkkinen." - so that Schumacher's time is quoted. D.M.N. (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the first qualifying session, held on Friday afternoon,..." - you've already said when it was a paragraph up. —Giggy 10:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned when the practice sessions were, but not the qualifying sessions. Practice sessions and qualifying sessions are 2 different things. D.M.N. (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. —Giggy 09:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Date linking is no longer encouraged by MoS, which is different than saying it is discouraged. The exact wording at MOSDATE is: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Date linking was only used in one place in this article. It doesn't add anything whatsoever to the article, so I've got rid of it. D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sandy, my mistake - I'll be more careful with my wording in future. —Giggy 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And yeah, that's all I got. —Giggy 09:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher converted his pole position from qualifying to lead into the first corner at the start of the race" - wordiness; the first corner is obviously at the start of the race. —Giggy 09:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed "at the start of the race". D.M.N. (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, actually you go through the first corner on every single lap, so I'm not sure it was redundant. Something think about, anyway. 4u1e (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Herbert reiterated Schumacher's opinion..." -what opinion? Context. —Giggy 09:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The opinion of Schumacher's in the quotebox that Benetton did a great job. I have a quote from Herbert, but didn't really want to put it in, otherwise the post-race section will slowly turn into a series of quotes. D.M.N. (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The block quote (or are there two?) in the Post-race section is odd since it comes from two sources.... is that one quote or two? —Giggy 09:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One quote. I've removed the ref in the middle as the ref at the end covers the whole of the quote. D.M.N. (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as all issues are addressed. —Giggy 07:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

oppose Image:Podium1995JapanGP.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How? —Giggy 10:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unsuprisingly, it's presence does not significantly increase my understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding, feel free to use the link above Fasach Nua (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so reading that, it sounds like no photo whatsoever would increase someone's knowledge of the topic. Would a picture of the start of the race be better? D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with the readers' understanding of how the race began, that would require such an image? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It sounds like that any image of the race that I put into this article would get struck down by this claim as such. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article doesnt need a copyrighted image than it doesnt need a copyrighted image! Fasach Nua (talk)
 * Note: Much as comments here should be about content rather than the contributor, I don't think this user really understands the criteria he is citing, and has made a number of misguided recent edits under this belief. Bob talk 17:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My take on the criteria is the image has to be one of a defining event. You could justify something like the start crash at Spa '98 because it's hard to convey the extent of the incident without an image. Here, the main purpose appears to be to identify drivers, whom are living people. In addition the copyright tag used is "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." - the image actually appears to come from Getty. AlexJ (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. It guess it could be argued that the circumstances of this image are unrepeatable, even if they aren't as unreplacable as images such as the example you gave. Difficult to say, isn't it? I still don't think it's justifiable to oppose a whole candidacy on the basis of one image, though, especially as it does have all the correct fairuse information, etc. Bob talk 19:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Fasach Nua. I'm familiar with NFCC and was questioning your justification in this case since clearly, differing people see that policy differently. D.M.N., I would suggest you add a few free images (Michael Schumacher, Mika Häkkinen, and Johnny Herbert all have them, as well as Commons categories to choose from other images) instead of the nonfree one, since I do agree with the statement "If the article doesnt need a copyrighted image than it doesnt need a copyrighted image!" (opposition over this is valid, even if some consider it silly). —Giggy 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've removed the podium image, and added two free use images, one of Schumacher, and another of Damon Hill. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting in the caption of the Schumacher image that it was taken several years after the event.-- Diniz  (talk)  22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point concerning images - if images of 1995 season cars in action are required beyond what we have already, then I could ask the Flickr user I got these two images from to change the licensing on the rest of his photo set from the 1995 British Grand Prix.-- Diniz  (talk)  23:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the article meets criteria 3 in full Fasach Nua (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - One thing that stands out a bit for me in this article is the picture of Michael Schumacher. Now there is probably nobody on the planet who knows MS but doesn't know he drove for Ferrari. But the point is this article is about the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix - when he drove for Benetton, therefore it strikes me as strange to have him pictured in his 2005 Ferrari shirt. Someone's going to say 'but we don't have a picture of him in Benetton colours' – I know that, but the picture isn't central to the article in any way so I think it would be better to remove it. Mark83 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As he's the winner of the race, and a key figure surrounding the event, I think it's best to keep it until a free one of him in the Benetton comes up. I will (however), follow Diniz's suggestion and note in the caption that the image was taken in 2005. D.M.N. (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it "..pictured in 2005" or similar in the caption is a better solution than removing the image.Mark83 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.galeforcef1.com/ a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Gale Force F1 website, I believe, satisfies WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, along with WP:RS for a few reasons. The Gale Force website is linked from Autosport's/Atlas F1's reports, see here, with a comment saying it is "the fastest Formula 1 results service on the Internet". On Gale Force F1's history page, see here, it states that it has hosted in the past, the Atlas F1/Autosport website, as well as hosting the Pacific Racing F1 team site. As it hosted a reliable website, surely that doesn't make Gale Force reliable? Also, the Atlas F1 website has an About Us page, with a list of credentials an well as compliments from others inside Formula One. D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can live with this for uncontentious information, although I'd not use it for anything contentious. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2001/jan17/murray.html is from a published magazine? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno. D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make it unreliable does it? Just querying. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, being a published magazine would make it reliable, probably. I was asking to see if it was reliable. (I'm leaning towards reliable on this one, but every little bit helps). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. My guess is that the article was published in that particular weeks Autosport magazine (January 17th, 2001). D.M.N. (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any chance we can get that confirmed? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it was published in a magazine or online-only, surely the fact it has been published somewhere by the Haymarket Group (apparently the "largest privately-owned publishing company in the United Kingdom") makes it reliable? We take many web-only publications as references where the publisher is reliable (e.g. BBC News Online). AlexJ (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the UK, so I'm not familiar with the Haymarket Group. Are they behind the site? (forgive me if I'm not looking myself, about to be invaded by guests for dinner...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, Haymarket Group are behind this site. D.M.N. (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 Comments Support - I was a supporter last time, but I have become better at spotting writing errors since the last FAC. Let's see what I can find. I'll look at the rest after these are done, but there isn't much more to review, which is good. Spend some time checking the commas, since I found the most issues in that department. As for the picture, you could always insert a free photo of Schumacher if the podium shot remains an issue.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bennetton were confirmed Constructors' Champions as Williams could not pass Bennetton's points total with only one race remaining." "Bennetton were confirmed Constructors' Champions" is a bit awkward; it feels like a connector is missing after confirmed. Of course, this could be my lack of experience with British English again.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Report, Background: "having clinched the title at in the previous race..." Typo.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed "in". D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "There was speculation that Williams were going to replace him with Heinz-Harold Frentzen moving to the team for the 1996 season." I would remove "moving to the team" as it seems unneeded; it already says that Hill is being replaced.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right. It sounds a bit like a duplicate. Removed that phrase. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a wikilink for Jean-Christophe Boullion?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Not sure how the hell I missed linking while checking the article in copy-editing and stuff. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "replaced by Karl Wendlinger. Wendlinger..." Merging these would create a run-on sentence, so try "The Austrian..." Also, coma doesn't need a link.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Practice and qualifying: "Hill was third in the Williams two tenths behind Häkkinen; with Schumacher fourth behind Hill." I think this is an improvement: "Hill was third in the Williams, two tenths behind Häkkinen, with Schumacher fourth behind Hill."  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is better with the commas and stuff. Changed. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "his team-mate, Mark Blundell had a disappointing qualifying." Two points: First, add another comma after Blundell or remove the prior one. Second, there needs to be a descriptive word after qualifying. Session would be best, but it's used right after this sentence. I trust you can figure something out.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a comma after "Blundell". As for the second point, I have inserted "session", but reworded the sentence after, so it now reads "In the first part of qualifying," - this avoids the two "session" words being right next to each other. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Race: "which meant that lap times were slower than qualifying." The last part of this is bothering me. I think it should be "slower than during qualifying (feels like a word is missing in my example, but I'm not sure.).  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed it completely, so it reads: "which meant that lap times were slower than the previous days qualifying session." - Note it's "days" as qualifying took place over two days (Friday and Saturday). Is that OK? D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Morbidelli stalled his car in the process forcing him to retire from the race." Comma after process? Another after "Alesi began to make his way through the field"? And after "Schumacher made a pit stop on lap 10 for dry tyres? This could just be British English again, as I've noticed fewer commas in such articles.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another comma after "Schumacher pitted for a second time on lap 31".  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't done the above two. I'm not that good with commas, and just tend to put them in, when it feels like a sentence is becoming excessively long, or when there's a drivers name or whatever. I don't feel they are necessarily needed in the examples above you mention, it doesn't feel like a break in the sentence is needed IMO. If anyone disagrees, please do insert the commas, as I mentioned, I'm not really good with commas. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Time for the final comments from me. I'll perform strikes after these are looked at, so don't worry that I haven't done it yet.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "set the fastest lap on lap 33" A tad redundant with the laps.
 * If I removed that, it would be: "Schumacher, who came out in second after his pit stop, set the fastest lap." - for me, saying that in my head, it sounds like the sentence stops abruptly without any kind of flow - it's like it would be missing a bit of information - the reader wouldn't know when he set it (of course they could look in the infobox). D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Post-race: "was the time that Frank Williams, along with Patrick Head decided to..." This is another comma oddity. I'd like to see one after Head.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Alesi stated that if he had not had the driveshaft failure," A touch wordy. I suggest "Alesi stated that if his driveshaft had not failed,".  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the References, you could move the full Autocourse reference with author, dates, ISBN etc. to a new Reference section, renaming the existing section to Notes. The individual citations would then be just the author and page number. This is only a suggestion and not something I would withhold support over.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * TBH, I prefer to have it this way, for me it looks better than the other way. I guess it depends on who's writing the article and what their preference is. D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all from me. I told you there wasn't that much more. Assuming these are handled quickly, I will return tomorrow to perform strikes and give my support.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, counting spaces, the lead has 940 characters (less than a typical WP:TFA blurb); does the lead adquately cover the article, per WP:LEAD? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a little bit to the lead. I didn't want to add too much, as for an article of this size, there should only be "two or three paragraphs" in the lead. D.M.N. (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, where else am I meant to put the nbsp's? Is there a script anywhere that I can use to do this automatically - or is there a guideline on where they should go? D.M.N. (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good now (the guideline is at WP:NBSP). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support On the basis of the copy, this is FA-worthy. Images, I'm not so hot on. Well done for sticking with this - it's been quite tortuous, hasn't it? That little bronze star will make it feel worthwhile. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.