Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix/archive2


 * 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 not promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

1995 Japanese Grand Prix
previous FAC (00:05, 19 April 2008)

I originally nominated this article for FA a few weeks back, but it was failed. It has since gone through a thorough peer review, meaning it has gone from this to this (see diff). I am confident, with the work that has already taken place on the article that it meets the FA criteria currently in place. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments I participated in the peer review, and my comments on the sources as well as the responses from the editors of the article are located there. Interested reviewers can look there for information, as I'm on the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth's questions about reliable sources can be found on the peer review (copied over because she's on the road):


 * http://www.chicanef1.com/main.pl
 * http://www.chicanef1.com/acks.pl
 * The ChicaneF1.com website this morning went dead (literally!) but has since come back on. In any case, I have removed most of the references from that website, and replaced them with more reliable sources from the Autocourse annual. One or two references remain, but this is not a big problem as it was earlier. D.M.N. (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.f1db.com/tiki-index.php
 * http://www.f1db.com/popups/f1db-disclaimer.html
 * All references removed from that website. A lot of info on that site was incomplete, so it looks like a unreliable source. It also (on one of the pages I went onto earlier) stated "This is incomplete... feel free to add information." D.M.N. (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.gpracing.net192.com/home.cfm
 * http://www.gpracing.net192.com/services/about.cfm
 * http://www.galeforcef1.com/
 * I personally felt this was reliable, but seeing as my "explaining skills" are not up to scratch, I've removed the vast majority of these references. D.M.N. (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/
 * http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/about.php Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. Note: The removals do not mean a lot of information is unsourced. A lot of the sources contained timing details of different pratice sessions etc. This can be easily verified from the Autocourse annual. Autocourse is a well known publisher of Formula One annuals, and I believe that have been publishing them for nearly 25 years, so they are almost certainly a reliable source of information. I hope my removals help address the references issues a little. D.M.N. (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I still see 14 statements cited to sources for which reliability isn't yet established. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, they are reliable. Why is this such a problem? Quote from WP:SPS:


 * the material used is relevant to their notability - Yep.
 * it is not contentious - Not contentious, the event was seen on television in nearly 200 countries and watched by millions of people's.
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject - Correct, all claims are to do with events related to subject.
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it - Pretty clear for the above in my view.
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources - The article is based on a wide variety of sources, including Autocourse, GrandPrix.com and The Formula One Website, so it's not based primarily on SPS. D.M.N. (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SPS says Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: the list above. In otherwords, Chicanef1 could be used in an article about Chicanef1, etc.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this is taking us no where, maybe it's worth me starting up a RfC on the Formula One WikiProject talkpage to get a wide variety of opinions on the above sources and come to a decision about whether they are reliable or not. D.M.N. (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard is where you can inquire about reliable sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed to Support, provided the image issue raised below is resolved. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 *  Leaning support - A lot of work has gone into this article, and it shows. I still found a few issues, though.
 * Practice and qualifying: "Schumacher finished in first place in the first session," Two firsts close together. See if you can change one of them.
 * Changed to "Schumacher was fastest in the first session,", which get's rid of the 1st "first". D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher clinched his tenth pole position of his career," Another redundancy. Try "Schumacher clinched his tenth career pole position".
 * Sounds better. Changed to your version. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Race: Figures shouldn't normally begin a sentence per WP:MOSNUM. 22 starts a sentence here.
 * Changed that sentence that starts with 22 to: "Out of the 24 cars that qualified, only 22 took the start". - D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "hitting the wall after the contact". Two thes here. Try "a wall".
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the article could use a comma check, as I found some problems related to that. Once these are taken care of, I will be happy to give my full support. Well-done. Giants2008 (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As noted earlier, I've asked Tony1 nicely to do a comma check. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed a few commas myself, mainly from the "Race" section. D.M.N. (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to Sandy/Raul: I feel I have addressed the above comments. Please see the diff of me informing Giants2008 on hisa talkpage. Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)'''
 * I'm satisfied with the commas now. The sources, although they have been criticized, are probably the best that can be found for a 1995 race, before the Internet became what it is today. As for a picture, again, the race took place 13 years ago, and it will be very hard to find a picture today. I gave my full support above, as I now believe the article is worthy of being featured. Giants2008 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I say it's lacking a picture, I mean a free picture. I saw the fair-use photo of the podium ceremony. Assuming the photo's use is valid, I think it's as much as can be expected. Giants2008 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For a featured article, I would really expect at least one (perferrably good) photograph of the race. -- Cambrasa  confab  14:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found a appropriate photo here taken from the race weekend. Could I crop it, and upload it? Failing that, there's this photo, but that would require the photo to be cropped. There are no appropriate photos on Flickr of the race weekend. There's also this photo (see sidebar) which might be appropriate. Of course with all of the above, I would have to provide a FUR. D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that Tony will have time to fix commas (you might ask User:Epbr123), and User:Elcobbola can advise you on images. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Anyway, I've asked someone else to do a comma check in the meantime. D.M.N. (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Desperately needs a picture of the race. Otherwise good. — Wackymacs (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - I've added two (hopefully OK) images, with proper NFUR rationale's. D.M.N. (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice - but please use Template:Non-free use rationale on both of those images. — Wackymacs (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do those photos actually meet FU guidelines? To me, it just looks like they're being used for illustration, as they don't depict any historically notable event (you may be able to argue the podium is, but a generic Benetton picture definitely isn't). AlexJ (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alex, I've done a lot of Google searches, and cannot find any images whatsoever of the race start or any other moments within the race. The Benetton image was from qualifying. D.M.N. (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, from experience I know just how hard it can be to find pictures of the races before digicams became prevalent. However that doesn't exempt the article from having to meet the criteria which states "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content" - I'm not convinced that Benetton image does. AlexJ (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Maybe I could get a screenshot of the season review? D.M.N. (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear D.M.N., googling not the only way to obtain materials. You could for example go to a good old-fashioned city library and dig through old newspapers to find pictures, which you can scan and include in low resolution. You could also try to contact the photographer who made the picture and if you ask nicely, they might allow you to use it on Wikipedia. You could also try to dig for amateur pictures on web forums or flickr, and ask the authors for permission. The podium picture you have included is good, but its quality is too poor for a featured article in my opinion. The problem is not the low resolution, the problem are the strong jpeg compression artefacts that make it look unaesthetic. Can you find the same picture with a low resolution, but a higher compression ratio? A picture of the cars is also needed in my opinion. -- Cambrasa  confab  15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found an image of the start. Would that be OK? As for the podium, I'll try and find the same picture with a low resolution. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found an image of the podium but at a different angle. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another image of the start can be found on this page. A freely-licensed image of Michael Schumacher's Benetton B195 has also recently been uploaded to the Commons, and I have posted a link to it on the article's talk page.--  Diniz  (talk)  19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Diniz! I'm not going to insert them at the moment, because I want others to comment on which one they think will be better to insert. D.M.N. (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment:
 * The big problem with this kind of article is to find ways of dealing elegantly with the inevitably large number of very similar formulaic statements, for example, race positions and lap times. It becomes tedious reading "XXX came first/second, with XXX points/with a time of X:XX.XXXX" umpteen times. Is there any other way of dealing with this? For example, with little tables? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think there's another way to get round that, motor racing is a sport which uses a lot of forumlaic statements (top speed; fastest lap; race results). The tables at the bottom are used for the qualifying and race results, but I don't think there is a way to get round it in the main body of the article. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I see a lot of questions about and mention of changing images: please ask or  to check the images.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1a: Now, please have the whole article copy-edited thoroughly; this is not at all good enough for featured status, which explicitly requires a "professional" standard of writing. Tony  (talk)  08:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The opening is not promising: "The race was contested over 53 laps, with Michael Schumacher winning the race for the Benetton team after starting from pole position. Mika Häkkinen finished second in a McLaren, with Johnny Herbert third in the other Benetton." Please, let's move on from this noun + gerund thing, and "with" as a connector, which are awkward and strictly speaking ungrammatical: "The race, contested over 53 laps, was won by Michael Schumacher for the Benetton team. Mika Häkkinen finished second in a McLaren, and Johnny Herbert third in the other Benetton." I see the same grammatical glitch in the next bit: "both the Williams team's cars retiring from the race".
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Jean Alesi, driving for Ferrari, started second beside Schumacher at the start of the race. However, his car moved forward before the start, and he had to serve a 10-second stop and go penalty. Alesi climbed up to second, before retiring on lap 25." Remove "at the start of the race". Logical problems then ... "However, SINCE his car HAD ..., he was forced to .... stop-and-go penalty." Bombsite.
 * WP:CIVIL. Calling a article I have developed a "bombsite" is quite frankly, insulting. You are the only one that has a problem, with this, no one else above has. D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done the above. I find your attitude a bit too much. Calling it a bombsite makes me pissed off thinking my hard work went for sod all. The fact you only did the lead shows you can't be bovered to review the rest of the article - maybe if you did that, and maybe if more people reviewed the article, it would be in a better state. I take it my point at WT:FAC last month never really got anywhere. D.M.N. (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? I refuse to go to WP:LOCE, as you are left waiting there for at least a year. Some requests are still on there from a year ago. D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, you may be interested in that I looked at this earlier. As a result, I've made these edits to the article. Please look and comment below. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments regarding criterion three:
 * Image:Podium1995JapanGP.jpg needs (1) a copyright tag, per WP:NFCC#10B,(2) a verifiable source, per NFCC#10A and WP:IUP (URL is a dead link to Google cache) and (3) a relevant purpose of use, per NFCC#10C (current purpose of "show[ing] subject of this article and how the event depicted is significant to the sporting world" does not appear to be relevant.  How do three drivers really depict an auto race?  How do the three drivers depict, illustrate or prove that this event was important to "the sporting world"?)
 * See MOS:FLAG ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. To address your second bullet point, it helps the reader as it shows the three drivers that finished first, second and third in the auto race. D.M.N. (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could the same be done be achieved with freely licenced pictures of the three? AlexJ (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But, the driver may not be at the same team as he was in 1995, for instance a picture of Michael Schumacher in Ferrari overalls on the article would be pretty useless in my view. D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The image source is still a dead link (note, by the way, that we should be linking to the page on which the image is used, not directly to the image itself) and the purpose has not been changed. How are the flags in the "Classification" section helpful?  The section's use of flags seems to be identical to the MOS page's example of what not to do.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done the image thing. The flags in the "Classification" identifies what nationality the driver it. It is in this exact same format on all 755+ Formula One race reports, including the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix & 2005 United States Grand Prix articles. Removing it from this means effectively they will have to be removed from all the other race reports for consistency. D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so now just the bizarrely disconnected purpose remains (it seems copy and pasted; ideally it would explicitly describe the content of the image and its necessary function in illustrating the article). The implication of removing the flags would be that this article would be meeting MOS; other articles are not germane to this FAC.  I'm not aware of an FAC ever failing for not meeting MOS, so this isn't a highly important issue.  As much as we Germans love our Schumi, however, I just don't see the necessity of knowing the nationality of all these drivers (perhaps if this were an Olympic event, but...)  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you have a point, but as you perfectly pointed out it's not a highly important issue. And, hey, it seems like me and you both love Schumi! (Pitty he never came back, but meh!) To do with the image, I've added a little to the description on the image page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nationality of the drivers in F1 is relevant - the television captions on the world feed use flags alongside the drivers name, and at the end of the race the Top 3 will have their flag raised above them on the podium and the winner gets his national anthem played. I believe the flags serve a useful purpose and are more than mere decoration. AlexJ (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not happy about doing this because the article has been through a lot, but it is still not up to standard. I am disappointed to see that it has still not gone through a thorough copyedit.  The play-by-play is still mystifying to a layperson which was my concern at the last FAC.  Some poor advice was given at the peer review which (by no fault of the nominator) unfortunately compounded prose problems.  For example, someone had you change "Williams were..." to "Williams was..." without regard to the former being proper British English.  You now have inconsistency ("Benetton were..." and "Williams was...") as a result.  D.M.N., it's not far away, but you simply have to poke around and get a serious, uninvolved copyeditor in there. -- Laser brain   (talk)  02:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That particular example "Williams were", I've changed back to "Williams was" having just re-read the sentence back. Are there any particular parts which you think are not up to scratch? D.M.N. (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

'''No comments after five days, so it gets archived with a 3 Support, 2 Oppose consensus. It's NOT my fault if editors don't get back to me with further comments, is it? Disgraceful. D.M.N. (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)'''
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.