Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercedes-Benz CLR/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2015.

Mercedes-Benz CLR

 * Nominator(s): The359  ( Talk ) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Renominating as this candidate received no input before being archived.

This article is about a series of race cars which suffered unusual accidents in their one and only race and have become part of the history of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and motorsport in general as a famous failure. They are often very well recognized through video and pictures of the accidents, but not well understood. Mercedes-Benz effectively forgot about these cars in the years since but one has reappeared in recent years. The359 ( Talk ) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I am sorry that you have had to wait so long for review attention. At one time I used to patrol the FAC page for instances of neglect and would attempt to get the review kick-started. I don't have much time to do that now, but I certainly think you have waited long enough. Here are some comments on the first half of the article – I'll complete the review later.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "sport cars" → "sports cars"
 * "campaigned by Mercedes" – I'm not sure what this means, but creating verbs for nouns in this way makes for ghastly prose. Do you mean "promoted"?
 * "Three CLRs were entered for Le Mans..." State the year here.
 * " the drivers were given strict instructions to avoid the instabilities". These instabilities are previously mentioned as "aerodynamic instabilities", which sounds like a design issue rather than a driver's problem. What was he nature of the "strict instructions"?
 * "These incidents..." would be better as "This and earlier incidents..."
 * The remainder of this sentence is tortuously phrased: I suggest "... led Mercedes not only to withdraw its remaining car from the event immediately, but also to cancel..." etc
 * Three cars, ten "notable drivers" listed in the infobox. Did all of them actually get to drive one of the three cars?
 * Background
 * "a street legal production car" = jargon. Please say in plain English what you mean
 * "refined the CLK GTR platform..." Sorry, but you should be writing for a readership which may lack  familiarity with technical expressions. What does "platform" mean in this context?
 * Development
 * You should open the section by specifically stating that the CLR was developed for the LMGTP category.
 * Rather than using legal terms like "divested" (albeit linked), why not state plainly what happened to the company?
 * "shared its lower half from..." You don't "share from". I think "derived from" is what you want.
 * Is there a link you can provide for "powerplant"?
 * "21,735 mi (34,979 km) had been covered by CLRs" should be recast in active voice: "the CLRs had covered 21,735 mi (34,979 km)"
 * 1999 season
 * I'd reconsider this section title, which is really about plans and personnel rather than the events of the season.

...and the rest of my comments: Quite a gripping account, with just a few quibbles:
 * Practice and qualifying
 * (first line): Redundant wording: "to be allowed to enter the race proper." This is implicit from the earlier part of the sentence. You repeat the same information later on, in "would have to qualify for the race on their lap times".
 * Strange choice of words: "efforts" and "programmes"?
 * Why was the No. 4 CLR involved in prequalifying when it had an automatic entry?
 * I'm getting a little confused. You said earlier that cars "were required to pass through pre-qualifying to be allowed to enter the race proper". But you now say: "Mercedes' three cars were allowed to participate in two days of practice and qualifying in the week leading up to the race in June". So was there further qualifying? (Later): from reading on, I gather that the next "qualifying" session was to determine grid positions; it may be worth clarifying this.
 * "to prepare a pass" is a bit jargony. Why not "to overtake"?
 * I'd delete the unneceaary words " further up the circuit".
 * As a general point, I notice that the formulation "due to" occurs several times in the article. It's one of those phrases that tends to jar with repetition, and it may be worth weeding out one or two.
 * Warm-up
 * The phrase "The CLR was swarmed by marshals" is a bit tabloidish, and I'm not sure it makes sense anyway; suggest rephrase
 * "instructed to not follow" → "instructed not to follow"
 * Race
 * "Mercedes took the race start from the fourth and seventh place grid positions" – why so convoluted? Why not: "Mercedes started the race from the fourth and seventh place grid positions"?
 * "while Bouchut followed in fourth" – better to say he gained two places to achieve fourth position.
 * Why did Schneider not achieve first place when the two Toyotas pit-stopped, since he was in third place behind them?
 * Aftermath
 * "A Porsche 911 GT1, similar in design to the CLR, suffered a nearly identical accident the year before at Road Atlanta" – needs a "had" before "suffered"
 * "canceled" – my impression is that you are using British spellings, e.g. "programme"
 * "from 2000 onward" → "from 2000 onwards"

Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries on the wait, it's my first FAC so I come with no expectations of a timetable, when it's done it's done.


 * I've tackled all of the easy bits you listed. I'm not sure if my section title is any better than the one I had before, I'm struggling to think of something more appropriate.  I also am not sure where you see ten drivers in the infobox, there are only nine and they are the nine race drivers who all drove the car in practice and qualifying.  There was a tenth reserve and test driver listed in the prose but he is not listed in the infobox.


 * The explanation on pre-qualifying, practice, and qualifying is a bit convoluted, it's been difficult to put it into words. Effectively, in January or so the ACO announces guaranteed entries, previous winners and champions from outside racing series who can participate in the race.  Then the ACO receives applications for entry from teams, which always outnumbers the number of spots available in the race (48 at that time).  Pre-qualifying is held at the track for a day to whittle down the field to the best applicants, plus the guaranteed entries.  However, since Le Mans is a temporary street circuit, you can't test there on your own, so guaranteed entries participate solely to gain testing knowledge on the circuit itself, something that can't be replicated elsewhere.  Two weeks later, the 48 cars are allowed two days of sessions (Wednesday and Thursday) which are termed qualifying but effectively can be used for any purpose the teams want.  The qualifying grid is determined from the fastest lap over those two days, but the teams have eight hours of track time over those days, so they are used for practice and qualifying at the same time.  Besides the brief warm-up on the morning of the start of the race on Saturday, those are the only periods of track time the teams get in the week leading up to the race.  This is an unusual procedure for most racing which follows a practice sessions-qualifying session-race format.


 * The use of the word programme is typical of racing, similar to Space Shuttle program. Here is an article on testing for this year's Le Mans which mentions teams having a programme.  I have however removed the word effort from the article.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. As I am pretty ignorant of motor racing, I think I'll let a more knowledgeable editor look at the text to determine what further work needs to be done. Ignore my miscounting in the infobox. My impression is that the article is fairly close to FA standard and should get there with just a little more work, but I'll defer making a declaration pending the views of more expert eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I'll add comments here as I go through the article. It might take me a day or two to complete the review. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "the design of the CLR's bodywork was pushed much lower to produce less drag": I think this needs to be rephrased. The design wasn't pushed lower; the design was changed so that the bodywork was pushed lower.
 * "Racing partner AMG were": I know in British English (which I assume this article is in) companies are plural, so "AMG were" is correct. Does that mean that it should be "racing partners", not "partner"?  I've been out of the UK for so long I can't remember what would sound right in Britain, so please leave this as is if it seems OK to you.
 * "The race was won by the Mercedes' FIA GT rivals Porsche": why "the Mercedes?
 * Suggest linking to sprint car racing at the first mention of sprint races.
 * "Mercedes had earned a single guaranteed entry for Le Mans by winning the 1998 FIA GT Championship, which was utilized by Gounon, Tiemann, and Webber in CLR No. 4": suggest rephrasing to bring "entry" closer to the "which" which refers to it. Perhaps "By winning the 1998 FIA GT Championship, Mercedes had earned a single guaranteed entry for Le Mans, which was utilized by Gounon, Tiemann, and Webber in CLR No. 4."  I'm also not crazy about "utilized".  How about "which was assigned to", since the team that used the entry presumably did not make the decision themselves?
 * I have made changes thus far, but the sprint car racing you link to is not the sprint racing the article refers to. Sprint in this usage is simply to imply an opposite of endurance racing (motorsport).  In other words, a race with a length similar to that of a Formula One Grand Prix, or roughly 2 hours, as opposed to the 24 hours for Le Mans.  Sprint car racing is entirely different format of motorsport unrelated to sports car racing.  There is no real link I can provide for sprint in this context as it is simply a non-endurance race.  The359  ( Talk ) 17:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, I have added or refined several sentences in the article based on an interview with one of the CLR drivers that was published today, so you may have to go back and reread these alterations. The changes are here.  The359  ( Talk ) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All struck except the comment about sprint car racing; I take your point that the link is wrong, but perhaps a footnote could give the explanation you gave me here? More comments tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the ease of understanding, I have removed the word sprint. I have noted that the Petit Le Mans is an endurance, and the Laguna Seca and Las Vegas races are shorter.  Hopefully this makes everything much simpler.  The359  ( Talk ) 04:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A few more comments. I'll try to spotcheck some sources tonight. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "HWA GmbH, the motorsports division of AMG, which later became an independent company in 1999": "later" is redundant since you also give the date. How about "HWA GmbH, the motorsports division of AMG, which became an independent company the following year"?
 * Suggest linking CL-Class.
 * "Displacement was increased from 5.0 L (310 cu in) to 5.7 L (350 cu in) to compensate for the new air restrictor limitations in the LMGTP category,[3] and allowed the motor to produce approximately 600 bhp (450 kW; 610 PS)." The conjunction shouldn't be "and allowed"; if the increase in displacement is the primary cause of the increased power, I'd make it "which allowed"; if there were other reasons for the power increase I'd suggest a period and a couple more explanatory words to introduce the revised power numbers.
 * "nearly 9.1 m (30 ft)": the source actually says "at least 30 ft", so I think this needs to be rephrased. Also it's clear that the accuracy of that figure is no better than within two or three feet, so the decimal point on the metric figure seems unnecessary.
 * "continued on unhindered": "continued on" is redundant. How about "continued apparently unharmed" or "continued with no apparent damage"?  I see from the "aftermath" section that there may well have been damage, so it might be worth using a phrase like "no apparent damage" to cue the reader for the later comment.  Or if, as is probably more likely, there was indeed damage that was apparent to the team, but it was thought to be insignificant, we could say something like "was able to continue to race"?
 * "Mercedes-Benz immediately addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions before the race had concluded": "immediately" is unnecessary with "before the race had concluded", but I can see why you want it there. How about "Before the race concluded, Mercedes-Benz addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions", or perhaps "Mercedes-Benz immediately (before the race concluded) addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions"?
 * "Although no conclusion was made by Mercedes": what does "made" mean? Do you mean they published no conclusions, or were they unable to reach a conclusion?
 * I think a couple of the external links could be cut -- the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport link seems reasonable, but why are the others relevant to this article?


 * I have addressed most of the points except linking CL-Class as it is linked in the introduction. Are you suggesting linking it again or did you miss this first mention?  See my comments below for addressing the See Also section.  The359  ( Talk ) 16:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK on all the above; I did miss the initial link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Last comment: Once that's fixed I'm ready to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first three sentences of the "Preparation" section are unsourced; the next footnote only sources information about Dumbreck.
 * Alongside the Dumbreck source I have added specific sources for Lagorce, Lamy, and Heidfeld as the other newcomers to the team to cover their previous racing career, with a single source for the five retained drivers. The359  ( Talk ) 17:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. A note to the FAC coordinators: I found a couple of minor issues in spotchecking the sources, so it might be good to ask someone to do a little more spotchecking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
I know very little about cars but might be a good judge of accessible prose as a moto-neophyte. I'll make striaghtforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 *  The new cars, known as the CLK GTR, were designed for use both as a racing car and a road car available to the public as part of the series' regulations. - subject goes plural, singular, plural verb then singular noun. Can we use a collective noun ("set", "cohort" or something) for the "cars" as this will make it read better..?


 * I'd link 'transmission'


 * Do we need the See also items - if they are relevant enough, they should be covered in the body of the text surely...and if not, then aren't they a bit tangential to the topic?

Otherwise, reads well so on target for FA status I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the sentence to make everything plural, as it should be, so hopefully it makes more sense now.


 * Regarding the See Also section, I have removed two of the links. Mercedes-Benz in motorsport is difficult to work into the article as it is the 100+ year history of Mercedes in motorsports, so there is no really relevant link for it in the article as is.  I'd consider it similar to a portal link.  1955 Le Mans disaster is relevant as it involves a similar accident at Le Mans in which a Mercedes left the track, killed a lot of spectators, and Mercedes immediately withdrew their cars and stopped racing at Le Mans for several decades.  I'd consider it similar to a See Also section on an aircraft accident linking to similar accidents.  The359  ( Talk ) 16:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, every so often there are some that are tricky to shoehorn in yet do benefit from a link, ok support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: I believe that this article is worthy of a promotion to FA. The article is very well written and comprehensive in my opinion. Z105space (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

 * I know next to nothing about cars and racing, so I'll contribute with an image review. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the photos are appropriately sourced and licensed Flickr uploads. However, this diagram could need a source for the information presented, as well as being uploaded to Commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CLR_Incidents.png FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is a derivative of File:Circuitdelasarthe.svg, a public domain image. I don't deal with many derivative works so I'm not sure how exactly to lay that out.  The359  ( Talk ) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I was thinking more about the information conveyed, not the image itself as such. What information is the accident mark based on? And the map of the circuit? FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. The marks are based on a combination of videos and pictures and accounts in some of the article sourcing.  Should I be citing the location of the accidents in the blurb on the thumbnail or on the description of the upload?  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the map of the circuit though? The359  ( Talk ) 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the upload page is fine, then the information can be found from wherever the image is linked. As for the circuit, I mean the map itself. Is it based on a published map, and which? FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I did not create the original map, I'm not 100% positive, but I believe the maps used throughout motorsport articles on Wikipedia are all simply drawn from Google Maps or similar satellite images of the circuits. The359  ( Talk ) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's ping the original uploader, . Seems he hasn't edited since 2013, so I guess it is ok for now, as long as sources for the crash area are added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the image to Commons and have basic links to articles that describe the location, although I'm not sure how to cite sourcing on Commons as one would do on Wikipedia. Some of the referencing comes from simple videos and pictures of where the accidents took place and being able to identify where they are on the circuit.  The359  ( Talk ) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the source is a link, you can just link it like this on Commons. Some might consider the method of marking the accident on the image as "original research", but remember, that is allowed for self-made diagrams and photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is now sourced then. The359  ( Talk ) 15:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (recusing coordinator duties) - I apologize for dropping substantial critical commentary on a nomination so far into the process, but I found this to be dense, difficult to read, and awkwardly written. I am moderately familiar with motorsports and I found lots of turns of phrase that are strange to me. I also found things that don't make sense in the given context. I'll try to provide some examples below, but I think this needs a thorough copy-edit by someone fresh who is also familiar with the topic matter. Most of these are from just the lead. Considering the topic matter, it should be a brisk, light read. You have great information and great research here, but I feel like it needs some TLC from a skilled copyeditor. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Designed for ... regulations" just doesn't read well. We would normally write "to meet regulations" or similar.
 * "most notably at the 24 Hours of Le Mans" What causes you to write that? I've read through a couple of times and I'm having trouble picking out where that statement is supported in the body of the article.
 * "The CLR's bodywork was much lower in height" Unclear and imprecise. Less space between the body and the ground, or shorter overall?
 * The word "numerous" is used twice in the lead. I find it to be an unnecessarily vague term, considering the exact numbers are known. Numerous races could be 10 or 100—why leave it to the imagination?
 * "Three CLRs were entered ... after performing nearly 22,000 mi (35,000 km) of testing" This seems like non-standard writing. Cars don't perform testing.
 * "requiring a lengthy rebuild" Lengthy means what in this context? Comprehensive, or taking a long time? Either way, it's cloudy.
 * "The new cars, known as CLK GTRs, were designed for use both as racing cars and road cars available to the public as part of the series' regulations." I've read this a few times and I can't figure out what "as part of the series' regulations" is doing at the end of the sentence.
 * I have addressed some of the issues you raised here, although not all quite yet. However I am looking for clarification of your statement on being a brisk, light read.  Are you referring just to the lead or to the article as a whole?  The359  ( Talk ) 17:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the whole article, recognizing that it might be difficult for you to action. I suggested getting a fresh copyeditor because sometimes new eyes can work wonders. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- sorry but after more than two months we still don't have consensus to promote so I'll be archiving this shortly; pls seek the independent copyedit that Laserbrain recommends and then hopefully it will be third time lucky for this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.