Wikipedia:Featured article review/Formula One/archive1


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

The article was removed 10:28, 6 November 2007.

Review commentary

 * ''Notified WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR.

Article heavily unreferenced, which at FA level, it really should be. The article in total only contains 23 references, with many paragraphs left unsourced. Delist. Davnel03 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is referenced by more that 23 references, but only 23 are in-line citations. Other than that, a quick read over the article shows it to be comprehensive in it's coverage and pretty well written. Should some of the lesser known facts have in-line citations added, I believe the article would still meet the criteria of FA. Also isn't this FA Review not FA Removal Candiate? I thought the idea was to improve the article back to FA status at this stage rather than to suggest delisting. AlexJ 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is a FA Review. I've removed the delist part. Davnel03 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs work, certainly. More inline citation and probably some trimming of recent additions (I haven't checked, it's just that it's a perennial problem). 4u1e 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did you inform WP:MOTOR? The359 10:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here. Davnel03 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As WP:V states that direct, inline citation is only required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", could you please be a little more constructive and suggest which aspects of this article require citation?  Pyrop e  12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Several section are heavily unsourced, most notably the "History", "Racing and strategy", "Future of Formula One" and "Distinction between Formula One and World Championship races". Davnel03 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No Davnel, several sections are uncited, a very different thing. And anyway, as an active F1 contributor, wouldn't have been far more constructive to actually do something about this, rather than listing it here??  Pyrop e  12:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point? Also, quote from Featured articles with citation problems:
 * The following is a list of articles which do not feature inline citations, or which feature only a few. Featured article criteria have changed since 2005, and inline citations are now required for new featured articles; ideally, all older FAs will add inline citations where appropriate.
 * Formula One is actually on there. Davnel03 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * erm, yes. But the page also states that a "typical FA will have approximately 20" inline citations. This article already has 22 and the numbers grow near-daily.  Pyrop e  11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That list is not a proxy for FAR, and it is being misapplied here. Please read *all* of the appropriate disclaimers on the list; it only means that the article was passed under older requirements and may need to be checked, not that it's necessarily deficient.   (I do happen to agree that this article is deficient in citations, in addition to other problems.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, please delink trivials such as "sport"; check throughout.
 * Last para of lead, a stub, belongs further up. Lower down, there's another unintegrated stubby para.
 * Read MOS on hyphens, which are needed here after the numbers: "1.5 litre supercharged or 4.5 litre naturally aspirated engines".
 * Hyphen used as an interruptor: read MOS on em dashes.
 * Italic g for gravity?
 * Sentence case for titles. Tony   (talk)  14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as no one is dealing with these issues, I think the article should be delisted. Davnel03 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.