Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Japanese Grand Prix/archive2

===1995 Japanese Grand Prix=== This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the FAC for this article was failed, and I would like more comments so that I can improve the article further so I can renominate it for FA. Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/1995 Japanese Grand Prix/archive2.
 * Previous peer review

One point, looking at the FA criteria, one of them is "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." - I'm sure this used to say "images where available". The way it reads now suggests that images are a requirement. AlexJ (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments by
 * To my knowledge, WP:WIAFA has never said "where available"; I could be wrong. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it did either. I know WP:WIAGA has "where available" (or rather "where possible"). In fact, are images an absolute must for an article to pass FA? D.M.N. (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it! The last time I nominated something for FA, it said "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." That bit I've bolded is no longer there, which suggests (but doesn't specify) that images are now required. Because if they weren't, wouldn't that fact still be there. AlexJ (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments by
 * Lead
 * The bold title should not contain wikilinks, see WP:LEAD, though I do understand that it's not the first bold title.
 * Removed wikilinks in title, per LEAD. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "as Williams could not catch them with only one race remaining." I don't like this phrase, it sounds too informal. I'd rather have something like "because Williams could not pass Benetton's points total with only one race remaining."
 * You're right on the informal point. I've reworded it to your version. I'm not going to expand beyond that as it's explained in more detail in the main body, mainly in the 1st para. of the Background section. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Background
 * Not sure you need to say 1995 Pacific Grand Prix, perhaps just Pacific Grand Prix
 * I was thinking the exact same thing earlier when reading through the article myself. I've changed it to "Pacific Grand Prix" per your suggestion. There was only one Pacific GP in 1995 so it'll probably be better like that. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despite both the Williams cars going off into the gravel" I know what this means but I'm not sure a non-F1 fan would. I think either gravel needs changing, linking or explaining.
 * Not the greatest link I know, but I've linked it to Run-off area. Is that an OK wikilink? D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mark Blundell had a disappointing qualifying." Despite the obvious explanation that follows, I still think disappointing is POV. Indeed it might even be worse than disappointing. If you can find a relevant quote I'd use that instead.
 * Your right. I'm guessing even putting "bad" in is POV. No internet sources have quotes from Blundell, so I've asked to look in his 1995-96 AUTOCOURSE Formula One annual to see if there are any quotes from Blundell about his bad Japan 1995 Qualifying session. If not, then I'll need to reword it. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately he won't have the Autocourse to hand till at least the end of June. I'll attempt to reword it. D.M.N. (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would saying "Mark Blundell had a difficult time in qualifying" be POV? D.M.N. (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who defines difficult? Still sounds POV to me. AlexJ (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be saying: "Despite Häkkinen's solid performance, his team-mate, Mark Blundell underperformed in qualifying.", or would "underperformed" be classed as POV? D.M.N. (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Race
 * "The race was held mainly under damp conditions" Again I understand what damp conditions means, but a brief explanation as to the affects on time and performance might help.
 * I would, but my fear is that I could start putting things which might violate WP:OR. Maybe just add onto the end "The race was held mainly under damp conditions which meant that lap times would be slower than in dry conditions", and then start off a new sentence with the race start time? D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "ten-second stop and go penalty." and "10-second stop and go penalty." Choose one and keep it consistent.
 * Made it consistent to "10-second stop and go penalty". D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also differences as to spelling of pit stop / pitstop.
 * Changed mentions to "pit stop" as the article describing the pit stop process is located at Pit stop with a space. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Irvine rounding out the points in sixth place." Again I'd change for a non-F1 fan. Probably something to "Irvine rounding out the point-scoring places in sixth."
 * Yep, agree. Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Coulthard braked for 130R portion of the track," I'd put a "the" in front of 130R.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "sidepods" Is there a wikilink anywhere? Even just a section of another article?
 * I've linked it to Ground effect in cars which describes it a little bit, but not in any great depth. If anybody does create an article directed fully on "sidepods" in the future, then I'd link it to there. D.M.N. (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Overall it's very good. But obviously desperately needs an image or two. And just watch out to make sure non-F1 fans can understand it. Peanut4 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Penaut4, I appreciate it. Yep it needs images. There are one or two images of the Benetton B195 (the car Schumacher drove to win) on Flickr but unfortunately they are the wrong license. Thanks again. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks spot on. Only thing I would mention, regarding the WP:OR of damp race conditions, is possibly say something along the lines of: "The race was held mainly under damp conditions, which meant that lap times were slower than qualifying." Then there's no chance of any OR. Peanut4 (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point! Reworded to your suggestion. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Race times are slower than qualifying times anyway. Even when both sessions were held in near-identical dry conditions, the pole position qualifying times in 1995 were at least a second faster than the fastest race lap during the '95 season. AlexJ (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just thought of something else. How about putting in a chart of the Drivers Championship and Constructors Championship following the race? Peanut4 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's discouraged per WP:F1 guidelines, see this recent discussion on the matter. D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done in table format. I better inform WP:F1. :/ D.M.N. (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The standings look great - it puts the race into context now. Though I think a source needs to be added even if it is uncontroversial. Peanut4 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point. According to this source Schumacher's flag-to-flag victory was only matched in Japan by Senna in 1988. Worth adding in, methinks? Peanut4 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That source was actually written in 2000, and might be considered outdated. I'm pretty sure Schumi also had a light-to-flag victory in 2002 and 2004. It's probably not worth adding it in IMO unless it's very rare. D.M.N. (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * racing's not really my thing but maybe that's not a bad thing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Benetton were confirmed as Constructors' Champions  - umm...I presume that means the comany which wins the season, may be good to wikilink or explain it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, correct. This is sort of explained more in the Background section. I need to add a table towards the bottom of the article with the standings after this race. D.M.N. (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead loses me a bit, it sorta throws a bunch of facts at me and leaves me a bit confused at first glance. I would split into 2 paras after...oh heck I will show you. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to be crisp and clear - stating succinctly who won and how the race fit in to the overall F1 championship that year. Hence the paras (1) race details (2) bigger context - who won for the year etc. (3) other bits. Maybe go into (1)? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the look of things, 4u1e has done a bit of work on the lead. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * is it worth mentioning anything about the circuit here briefly? Looks interesting from the Suzuka Circuit article...again to give it context. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Might be. I'd rather not talk about the whole of the circuit, but maybe a few key spots only? D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comments from
 * You've still got references from sites that Ealdgyth questioned and which we have not yet between us justified as reliable. Should we start a discussion at WT:F1 to see if we can come to an agreement on which ones to use? In the meantime, it looks like you're using several different sites just to cover race results; is there any scope for just using one site that is known to be acceptable to cover races results?
 * Guroadrunner in the end commented on the sources at the FAC. I've also just created WP:MOTOR/SOURCES. It needs expanding though. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That seemed to be the only outstanding objection from the FAC, but looking at the comments, I would say the standard of the writing still wasn't there (Brilliant prose!). Let's see what we can do between us - have you asked a specialist copyeditor to look at the article? 4u1e (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't asked one, I've asked several. Trust me, over the forthcoming weeks this article will improve. ;)) D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Many comments might be variations of word choices in English. They are unclear/awkward/wrong in American English:
 * Comments from
 * link to motor racing is an overlink
 * Removed wikilink. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * penultimate - choose a simpler word(s), I didn't know its meaning. Maybe its a worldview thing.
 * I personally think it's a good word to use - I really cannot think of a better word to use than "penultimate"! D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Second last?" "Penultimate" might be a national variation of English or an F-1 word because I'm not familiar with it. I had to find a dictionary. That's not a good thing. Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but penultimate is a normal word to use. See the article on it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None taken. It's fine. I'll continue to use my longer and clunky wording in the future. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher had already clinched the 1995 Drivers' Championship at the previous race, the Pacific Grand Prix." take out of the lead paragraph. It's not directly related to the race, and it comes up in the background section.
 * Removed. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The race was contested over 53 laps" ... there has to be more concise wording
 * Can't think of anything else, maybe "The race occured over 53 laps", "The race was scheduled over 53 laps" - D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "was alongside Schumacher on the front" ... "alongside" is awkward. Maybe "started second beside Schumacher"
 * Done. "Front row" actually probably sounded a little jargony IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "also in Japan" - that sentence is too long with too many breaks in thought.
 * I've actually removed the little phrase. It's not really important to the article, all it does is state the location of the Aida circuit, so it's probably a little irrelevant to the article. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "leading on 92 points" "on" is awkward. how about "leading with 92 points". This occurs in multiple places.
 * Done. Changed in one other places a few lines on as well for "leading on 123 points" changed to "leading with 123 points". D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "20 points on offer" change to "20 points available"
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "meaning it was impossible" You are drawing a conclusion with the word "meaning", making it WP:OR. You should find a way to word it so that it leads the reader to that conclusion without stating it, or state it without that particular word.
 * Changed phrase to "which meant that Hill could not catch Schumacher with two races remaining." D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "the Constructors' Championship was still to be decided" to "the Constructors' Championship was not decided"
 * Done, but I think it might be better adding a "yet" between "not" and "decided". D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding the "yet" is the best. Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Having been in one of the two Sauber cars since the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix" - The layout of the season is unclear to a non-F1 fan. How about "Having been in one of the two Sauber cars since early in the season at Monaco"
 * I've decided to re-word it to: "Having been in one of the two Sauber cars since the 5th race of the season at Monaco,...." - is that better? D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worded better, but I believe that technically you should use "fifth" instead. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done by . D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Jean-Christophe Boullion was dropped" sounds cold or painful. How about "Jean-Christophe Boullion was released"
 * I agree, but I think it might be better having it as: "Jean-Christophe Boullion was released from his duties and replaced by...." - Is that OK? D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's even better. "...released from the team..." Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "due to an appendicitis operation" - "due" sounds crude. "after", "because", ...
 * I've gotta ask: why does 'due' sound crude?! Do you mean rude, or do you mean just a clunky-sounding sentence? :D 4u1e (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound "brilliant". It sounds weak (as in the opposite of strong wording). I remember reading an essay on it somewhere. Royal broil  15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just pipping in here, I prefer "because of" rather than "due to". I've always had "due to" to be more a time word, rather than causul. E.g. The race was due to start at 2pm. Peanut4 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments guys. I've decided to go with Peanut4's comment and I've changed the appendicitis sentence to include "because of". D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Because of" works well. Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do these edits and I'll read it again. Sorry about the high number of comments, but I think the article needs major changes to make it readable to a non-F1 reader. I'll look at other things like the references when these changes are done. Royal broil 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "For each race in the 1995 Formula One season there were two practice sessions, the first session on Friday morning, with the second session on Saturday morning." -> "For each race in the 1995 Formula One season there were two practice sessions; the first session was held on Friday morning and the second session on Saturday morning."
 * That sounds better. Reworded. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher maintained his form from the previous race" has a pushy POV sound.
 * Um. I'm not like as if saying "he did great" or something so I don't really understand how it's POV. Maybe, if it is indeed POV, I should instead of having: "Schumacher maintained his form from the previous race, finishing in first place in the first session. Schumacher was over two tenths of a second quicker than Häkkinen who was second with a time of 1:40.694.", I should have: "Schumacher finished in first place in the first session, over two tenths of a second quicker than Häkkinen who was second with a time of 1:40.694.", this way the POV is gone without losing the flow. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Maintained his form" sounds like a good magazine article, not like an encyclopedia. I like your suggestion. Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to my suggestion. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You should create separate sections to separate background, practice sessions, and qualifying. Practice could be a subsection of background, but I think qualifying should be its own section. It's your call since I'm not real familiar with F1.
 * I prefer the current format. However, if anyone else agrees with you, I'll be up for a change. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How are other F1 FA race articles formatted? Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's two, but they have entirely different circumstances, 1994 San Marino Grand Prix and 2005 United States Grand Prix. I want this to become an FA as it will be the only "normal" F1 race article to become an FA (that's until I work on the rest of 1995!) D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Häkkinen continued his good form in the McLaren" - "good form" sounds promotional and it pushs a POV
 * OK. Changed whole sentence to "Häkkinen lapped faster than Schumacher in the second practice session on Saturday morning with a time of 1:40.389." - D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Ferraris were fourth and sixth fastest, with Jean Alesi ahead of Berger" - is it customary to include practice speeds?
 * Nope. I don't think so anyway. I don't have any other F1 race reports to compare this to, seeing as most of the other 750+ race reports are stubs. D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher clinched his tenth pole position of his career, in his Benetton B195 with a time of 1:38.023". Need a comma after B195 since "in his Benetton B195" is a break in thought
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He was joined on the front-row by Alesi who was eight tenths of a second behind him" - comma after Alesi (another break in thought), "front-row" - shouldn't it be "front row"?
 * Yep. Done both. D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despite Häkkinen's solid performance in qualifying" - "solid performance" is POV/a conclusion
 * Hhm. I call it a solid performance because McLaren were punching above their weight, a third was considered good for them. Any ideas on how to reword it, seeing as it is "a conclusion"? D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you quantify it with a solid number instead? Something like "it was the team's best/second best/whatever qualifying effort of the season"
 * Done with a source. I think the sentence might need rewording a tiny bit though. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Blundell never participated in Saturday qualifying on medical grounds, so he was unable to set a time leaving him at the back of the grid" - awkward wording at the start of the sentence. How about "Blundell did not receive medical clearance to qualify on Saturday" or "Blundell did not qualify on Saturday after he did not receive medical clearance" or something simular. Need a comma after time, or even better reword to "so he had to start at the back of the starting grid".
 * I've had to add a little bit in so it goes: "Blundell never participated in the second qualifying session on Saturday afternoon on medical grounds" - his qualifying time that he set on Friday was crap (null un void) so I don't think the rewords above will do. D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "on medical grounds" phrase - it sounds weak or awkward. Could you somehow reword it? You can state that his Friday qualifying results were void if it helps. Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Change "on medical grounds" possibly to "as the FIA medical staff advised him not to" - maybe something along them lines? D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's worded much stronger. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Aguri Suzuki in the Ligier was another driver to have a crash, but his was worse than Blundell's, leaving him hospitalized with one broken rib" - too many breaks in thought, the Blundell comparison is OR and unneeded, and missing a comma after Ligier. How about "Aguri Suzuki crashed his Ligier during ____ (practice/qualifying?); he was unable to start the race since he was in a hospital with a broken rib."
 * Sounds better. Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The race was held mainly under damp conditions, which meant that lap times were slower than qualifying". You mean that the track surface was damp so that part could be clearer. Some unfamiliar readers won't understand why this is important (the increased danger, use of wet tires, etc.). You did a good job of explaining the implications of this in the following sentences.
 * Thanks! Does it need rewording though? D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No rewording, it jumped out at me as a strength!  Royal broil  00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah good! D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon another review, it does sound like it needs rewording. How about "The track surface was damp throughtout most of the race, which meant that lap times were slower than qualifying." It doesn't matter that the retaining walls and flagstand were damp. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds better. I've reworded it to your version. And yes, I agree with your last point. D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Due to his crash in qualifying, Suzuki was unable to take the start" - "due" problem as indicated above
 * Changed to "Because of". D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Roberto Moreno in his Forti also did not take the start". Commas around "in his Forti" as it's a break in thought. "take the start" sounds awkward and it is not crisp.
 * I'd suggest 'Forti Corse driver Roberto Moreno did not start the race' (provided it's necessary to mention Forti Corse at all here). 4u1e (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it to 4u1e's version as I think it sounds better. I've not included the "Corse" bit though just "Forti driver..." D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Alesi, who started alongside the Benetton, was judged to have jumped the start, and thus had to serve a 10-second stop and go penalty". replace "the Benetton" with Schumacher since it's unnecessarily confusing who's in the Benetton. "and thus" sounds awkward - how about "so he had to serve...". It would be interesting to note what position he came out in, or how far he fell behind the leader.
 * Changed to: "Alesi, who started alongside Schumacher, was judged to have jumped the start, and as a result had to serve a 10-second stop and go penalty." - I think "as a result" sounds better than "so he" IMO. I've also put the position he exited with a source directing to a lap chart. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "in the Footwork" - do you mean a Footwork chassis/car? Why is that needed? If a break in thought, it should have commas around it.
 * It's car. I've added "car" after "in the Footwork". Commas are now around the "in the Footwork car" phrase. It's there as it is notable occuring as it was the only collision on the first lap, in the process eliminating a driver from the race? D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Morbidelli spun as a result, stalling the car". Doesn't that mean that his race is done?
 * Yes. Does it need to be explained more? D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs to be explained more. Only a racing fan will understand that stalling the car means the driver's race is over, and then NASCAR and some other racing cars have starters. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would a simply wikilink to Stall (engine) be OK? And, on second thought, I think this whole little bit needs a rewrite. It's currently at: "Near to the back of the field, Gianni Morbidelli, in the Footwork car, retired at the first corner on lap one after being hit from behind by Wendlinger's Sauber. Morbidelli spun as a result, stalling the car." How about changing it to: "Near to the back of the field, Gianni Morbidelli, in the Footwork car spun at the first corner on lap one after being hit from behind by Wendlinger's Sauber. Morbidelli stalled the car in the process, forcing him to retire from the race." Does this sound better than the first version? I think it does as it goes in a chronological order, we don't mention in the revised version about the retiremenet until the end of the sentence. D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds much better. You need a comma between car and spun, because you have a break in thought. Royal broil  12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and wikilinked stall to Stall (engine). D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Alesi changed to slick tyres as the track was beginning to dry." Good sentence structure. It would be a good idea to very briefly explain how a wet tire is slower than a slick tire but a wet tyre is needed when the track is damp. The expansion would make it clearer to non-F1 reader. You could work it into the following sentence.
 * Thanks for the compliment! Is this extra sentence OK: "Wet tyres in Formula One are only needed if the circuit is wet, whereas slick tyres are used when the circuit is dry, hence why Alesi changed tyres when the circuit began to dry." - I'm not quite sure about the last little bit though, would it be classed as OR? If it is, then I will happily remove it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That should be common knowledge. You should/could also add that a wet tyre is MUCH slower than a dry tyre on dry pavement. I'd skip the fact that dry tyres wear out much quicker. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the last phrase and added this in: "Because of grip levels on the track, wet tyres would be much slower than slick tyres in dry conditions." - I think it needs a source, so how about linking it to this website? or maybe this. The Official F1 Website has an article on it, but it doesn't talk about wet & dry tyres much. D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While it's an improvment, there has to be a more concise way to word this phrase/sentence. "grip levels on the track" is written in a passive voice compared to "track grip levels". None of these sources source this statement. I'm thinking more on the line of changing this to a sentence like "Wet tyres are slower than slick tyres under dry conditions because they have poorer grip." Also, did they use intermediate or wet tyres? I forgot about intermediate tyres. Royal broil  12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even think intermediate tyres were around then (or at least in 1995, none of the sources have said they wore intermediate tyres). Anyway, I've reworded the last line to your version. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "team-mate" spelled correct? I thought it was "teammate". It could be a word with multiple correct spellings or difference in the national versions of English.
 * You can also have 'team mate'. I think all are acceptable, so just stick to one. 4u1e (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've kept consistent to "team-mate" all throughout the article. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. The main thing is that you're consistent if there's multiple spellings. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The two Jordan cars collided on lap 15, when Rubens Barrichello attempted to outbrake team-mate Irvine at the final chicane but spun, damaging his rear wing on collision with Irvine before hitting the wall slightly." Too many thoughts in one sentence - break into multiple sentences. How about "The two Jordan cars collided on lap 15. Rubens Barrichello spun in the final chicane when he attempted to outbreak team-mate Irvine. Barrichello damaged his car's rear wing during his collision with Irvine and he hit the wall slightly after the contact." That last sentence could be worded clearer, but it's the best thing that I can think of at this moment.
 * That sounds good. Reading that sentence in my head sounds like "we need a full stop NOW!" type of thing. I've reworded it to your version. I've made a slight change to the last sentence so it reads: "...collision with Irvine; hitting the wall..." Good work, Royalbroil! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Alesi was continuing to lap faster than Schumacher even when the Benetton was on dry tyres". It's confusing. Do you mean Schumacher's Benetton? If you mean Schumacher's car, then you should say that.
 * Yep. Removed "the Benetton" and added "Schumacher". D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "suffered an apparent differential failure on lap 25". wikilink differential to Differential (mechanical device) for the non-gearheads. Since the next sentence describes the original diagnosis as incorrect, you should say who made the incorrect diagnosis or just remove the incorrect diagnosis altogether.
 * I've added the wikilink, but I don't know who said the incorrect diagnosis. Most of the report websites just say that. When I say it was later revealed, it was probably revealed in the mid-week after the race. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it the way that you have it in that case. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "demoted to second" sounds awkward. "Demoted" is a military or work-related term, at least here in America. I'm sure you can think of a different way to word it. (fell back to second, came out in second, etc.)
 * Changed to "came out in second". For the Hakkinen one a few lines later, I've changed it to "with Häkkinen now down to fourth." D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher, who was demoted to second after his pit stop, set the fastest lap on lap 33, before Hill made his pit stop on lap 35, giving the lead back to Schumacher." Break into 2 sentences since it's long - there are 2 distinct passes.
 * Done. It now reads: "Schumacher, who came out in second after his pit stop, set the fastest lap on lap 33. Hill made his pit stop on lap 35, giving the lead back to Schumacher." D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Behind them, Häkkinen was third and Coulthard was fourth before his and Häkkinen's second pit stop". I don't understand the sentence. The word "his" stands for who?
 * "His" stands for Coulthard. Does it need clarifying in some way? D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found it confusing. How about "their" to replace "his and Hakkinen" to encompass both drivers. "pit stop" would have to become "pit stops" if you make this suggestion. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've changed it to your suggestion; so it now reads: "Behind them, Häkkinen was third and Coulthard was fourth before their pit stops." D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "He damaged his front-wing in the process, recovering back onto the track in fourth" The sentence is incomplete. Change to "He damaged his front-wing in the process, and he returned back on the track in fourth"
 * You don't need the second 'he' in that suggested structure. Front wing doesn't need a hypen, as far as I know. You can simply say 'returned to the track', rather than 'recovering onto the track' or 'returned back on to the track'. 4u1e (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it to: "He damaged his front wing in the process, and returned to the track in fourth." - is that OK? D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it! Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hill pitted to replace the damaged wing rejoining fifth". "Pitted" is a specialist term (that I use), so I understand it, but non-racing fans won't. You should state that he drove into the pits, and that the pit crew changed the wing.
 * Changed "pitted" to "made a pit stop". I've also added another bit, so it now sounds "Hill made a pit stop to let his pit crew replace the damaged wing rejoining fifth,...". My concern is now that the sentence needs to be split into two. What do you think? D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better if it were 2 sentences. It think you've added too much together. How about: "...the damaged wing. He rejoin fifth..." Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "beach his car in the gravel trap" odd use of the term "beach" that a non-specialist might not understand. Bury/got stuck might have broader use.
 * Changed to "bury". D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hill was told on the radio to speed" - Who told him to speed up?
 * His team. I don't know exactly who, I could guess but of course that's OR. I've added a bit so it now reads: "Hill was told by his team on the radio to speed..." - is that OK? I don't know exactly who is was as I said above, and i really don't want to speculate. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent way to deal with it. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher won the race after 53 laps, to claim his ninth victory of the season in a time of 1:36:52.930". The comma should be removed as there is no break in thought. There's probably a better word than "claim".
 * Removed the comma, and changed "claim" to "secure". D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hill was very disappointed about the race and the season as a whole saying afterwards" It needs a comma before "saying", or even better a period to make 2 sentences.
 * You can't insert a period (full stop) into that sentence and leave the words as they are. Either use a comma, or change to '...as a whole. He said afterwards...'. 4u1e (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to 4u1e's latter version. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant what 4u1e said and you implemented. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * what follows in a long quote. You should use put "" around long quotes. I just found out about this recently.
 * I've done it, but I've the Quote template to do it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I'll use quote in the future. Royal broil  01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Williams were fined". Williams is a single team, not plural, so it should be changed to "Williams was fined".
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there needs to be an image for it to be featured, but it won't make the front page without one. Royal broil  15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Royal, please don't say "sorry" for the comments, please! The more the better IMO. The more comments the more the article will improve (hopefully!) :D D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Second set of comments from
 * "Schumacher's victory was his ninth of the season, equalling Nigel Mansell's record from the 1992 Formula One season." So did it equal a Mansell all-time season record of 9 victories in a season? If so, it could be worded clearer to be "brilliant". How about "Schumacher won his ninth race of the season, which equaled Nigel Mansell's all-time record for victories in a season that was set in 1992."
 * That sounds better. Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Michael Schumacher was already Drivers' Champion" Missing "the" before Drivers'. Also, should "Drivers'" be capitalized? How about "Michael Schumacher had already won the season's drivers' championship, having clinched the title at the Pacific Grand Prix in the previous race."
 * Reworded to your version with some minor changes. I think "Drivers' Championship" should be capitilized. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Although the Drivers' Championship was already decided, the Constructors' Championship was not yet decided, with Benetton leading with 123 points and Williams on 102 points heading into the 16th race, with a maximum of 32 points available." That's long and complex. How about 2 sentences, with the transition "...was not yet decided. Benetton lead with 123 points" Royal broil  02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher retained first place at the start." I think you mean that he retained it after the start.
 * Do I? I think it sounds better with "at" the "after". If I have "after" a noob may think he lost the lead, then regained it "after" the start. After the start could mean, 2 laps, 10 laps or 50 laps, hence why "at" the start is used. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. There is a transistion from starting first on the grid, which frequently results in someone else jumping out into a lead. The article would be stronger if you found a way to state that there's a transition that he successfully went through. I'm thinking on the line "As the race started, Schumacher used his first place starting position to lead the race."? I'm sure that you can think of some better wording. Too bad this is not a magazine, or else you could say "Schumacher jumped to the early lead..." Royal broil  12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could this be OK (quick suggestion from the top of my head): Change the current version from: "Schumacher retained first place at the start.", change it to: "Schumacher converted his pole position from qualifying to lead into the first corner at the start of the race." - that might need minor adjustments, but is it better than the original version? D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very much stronger and clearer to someone's who's not a racing fan - I like it. Royal broil  02:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "running over the gravel trap" How do you run over a gravel trap? Wouldn't you run through it? I'm thinking in terms of running over an animal.
 * I would guess you go through it. Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "speeding in the pitlane due to his retirement" It's another "due to"
 * Reworded to "because of". D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "due to the downhill slope of the grid" Another "due to"
 * Done. The phrase "due to" is no longer, in any place whatsover in the article! Hooray! :D D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the article much easier to read.
 * Thank you! D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The tables are attractive. A few things to make them clearer: Did Blundell really officially have a 16+ minute qualfying lap? It needs a legend saying that "Ret" means Retired and "DNS" means Did Not Start. Does "Grid" mean the starting position?
 * Re: Blundell: that's what it says in the ref. ChicaneF1 also has it as that, so no misunderstanding. "Grid" means Starting Position. I have a problem with changing these, without a full discussion at WT:F1. Nothing against your comment, but a discussion at WT:F1 may be warranted first before changing. Same goes for a possible legend. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok about Blundell. I agree that you should have a discussion at WT:F1 to decide wider consensus. I might choose to participate in the discussion even though I'm not a member of the WikiProject. Royal broil  12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've took the discussion about the key/legend to WT:F1 see here. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article looks a lot shorter than what I would expect for a Featured Article. I have no comments about what you should expand since it appears to be complete. 24 references also seems short, but appropriate for this amount of text.
 * A length for an FA article would be about 30kb, but I'm pretty sure there have been shorter and longer FA articles!, for instance see this FA article. If I had a comment at the FAC saying "it's too short", I wouldn't be best pleased or impressed. I'm pretty sure if it was a 2005/06 race article, it would be much longer, because more sources and information would probably be available, but for this article there simply isn't. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you shouldn't waste text for the sake of making it longer. Commenting "it's too short" at FAC isn't actionable, so it would be ignored. Royal broil  12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm pretty sure Sandy and Raul at FAC will ignore that. In fact, I might just ask them. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliability of sources does look suspect as others have indicated. Can you find any books in addition to the "Autocourse" that describe the race? What about generic sports/motorsports sources like Sporting News, ESPN, Autosport? The New York Times has a searchable database . You could look at the nearest date at archive.org.
 * I'll have a look. D.M.N. (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, F1 is not very popular in the U.S. compared to other racing, unlike the rest of the world. Newspapers and magazines from other countries probably have better coverage. Are there any reliable magazines, newspapers, or television channels dedicated to sports in your country? What about other countries? I'm thinking about Times of India, Times of London, The Australian, others under Category:Lists of newspapers by country. Royal broil  12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that this race took place in 1995 may mean that there are not really many sources available to use outside of the motor racing world, unless the race is significantly notable, e.g. 1994 Australian Grand Prix. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but spending a little time at archive.org looking through the archives might give you some gems from very reliable sources. Rock solid references are very much needed. This might be a major concern by reviewers when FAC comes again. Royal broil  02:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only image used in the article is a picture of the track, which is uploaded properly to Commons. While other images would be helpful, the lack of in-race photographs shouldn't hinder the article's chances at FA.

Second reviewed. Royal broil 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from  -
 * The following sources are still iffy in my mind:
 * http://www.chicanef1.com/main.pl
 * http://www.chicanef1.com/acks.pl Who are these people, what are their credentials, what makes them reliable sources per WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS? "This page was created and is owned and maintained by Jonathan Davies. If you find anything that you think should come to my attention, or can suggest any improvements for ChicaneF1, then send an e-mail to webmaster@chicanef1.com. " Who is Jonathan Davies, and how does he meet reliability?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know who Jonathan Davies is. However, I have heard of one or two people on that page. Mattjs Diepraam also works on the FORIX website, which is part of the Autosport circle of websites and therefore has access to a lot of information. He appears to of written a lot of articles for the Autosport FORIX website. Richie Jenkins is reliable, as he runs his own website called Old Racing Cars. A lot of his information is compiled also from Autosport.com. The information found on the ChicaneF1 website can be verified through many other sources, and a lot of information can be found on many other websites. I personally think it's reliable and I find it a good source of information. I cannot see why it is considered a unreliable source, it contains "correct" information, not "in correct" information. D.M.N. (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer to "who are these people" needs to be framed in terms of WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB; what independent secondary reliable sources have published them or described them or what makes them experts. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.f1db.com/tiki-index.php
 * http://www.f1db.com/popups/f1db-disclaimer.html says, "due to the nature of open content and changes in F1 regulations, technology and team members, F1db.Com can contain some erros.(sic)". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a bad thing? If you feel this website is unreliable, I can replace it with ChicaneF1 sources, as both contain mainly the same amount of information, but ChicaneF1 contains a lot more of information and appears to be more accurate. D.M.N. (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you have other published info that indicates reliability, they are clearly not reliable by their own admission. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.gpracing.net192.com/home.cfm
 * http://www.gpracing.net192.com/services/about.cfm I can't find a single thing on this page that speaks to reliability or the credentials of the author. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.galeforcef1.com/
 * Disclaimer at the bottom of the page says, "ALL INFORMATION IS UNOFFICIAL". Their home page says, "This site was opened on 27 May 1995 and closed to updates on 31 January 2002." Doesn't sound current or reliable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it says "Unofficial" becuase this website is not run by FOM. The Gale Force sources are also directed from the Autosport website. It was formerly the host of AtlasF1 (now part of Autosport) and also hosted the official Pacific Grand Prix team (now defunct) website. A website also doesn't need to be "current" to have reliable sources. The website closed several years ago, but the information the website contains in factual, and can be verified from other sources (apart from practice times; however that can be re-verified from the Autocourse 1995-96 annual). I would also like to note it says "Unofficial" at the bottom of Autosport reports where timings are used. I don't think it's no big deal. D.M.N. (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any info that establishes they are reliable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/
 * http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/about.php Who is JHED Media BV, and what makes them reliable?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding GPUpdate.net, formerly F1Racing.net: It is run by a media conglomerate in the Netherlands but the site originally started in 1998 by a Dutchman ('natch). JHED Media BV appears to be a larger umbrella company now in ownership of F1Racing.net (web site: http://www.jhedmedia.com/contact/ ). It is a part of the Chamber of Commerce Groningen NL (id: 02097553). As far as media credentials, F1Racing.net largely centers on parroting news from PR sources, occasionally running team releases directly. Rarely does it put out things that have not already been reported elsewhere, although on the opposite side it does not actively publish rumors like some competitor websites do.
 * To its credit, though, the site, has actively pursued interviews with members in the paddock, including interviews conducted by journalist Stijn... somebody. It also held a high-level sports sponsorship with ex-F1 driver Christijan Albers, and also had a content partnership system with SpykerF1 (now Force India). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ____

Note that I'm not saying these are for certain unreliable, we just need to find the stuff to prove they fit into WP:RS. We're looking for information that other sources consider them reliable. Are they used in media articles? Do books use them? Do they list their sources of information? Do the authors have journalistic creditials in the sport?

I see others have addressed prose issues quite well, so I stuck with just the source stuff. 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ealdygth. Could you possibly have a look at WP:MOTOR/SOURCES and the last comment from Guroadrunner at the FAC. As this page will probably not get many responses from a wider audience, it might be a good idea to ask this at WT:MOTOR/SOURCES, so a lot of opinions are taking into consideration. Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure about Ealdgyth, but I can't follow your request above, D.M.N.; I can't locate the comment from Guroadrunner, and what a given WP thinks won't help resolve the sources. Can you please paste in to this document why you believe those sources are reliable, per WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB and WP:V?  What an individual WikiProject thinks isn't overly significant at FAC; we need specific information about authorship, ownership, fact-checking, whether they've been mentioned by independent reliable sources, etc.; something that shows how these websites are reliable according to our policies.  I see there's been quite a bit of work here, and I hope you see now that this was the right way to prepare an article for FAC :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, this is Guroadrunner's comment: D.M.N. (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ChicaneF1 is one of the most comprehensive Formula One statistics websites on the internet. Its intent is to "be the most comprehensive Formula 1 statistics website." It is published by Jonathan Davies, and has a news arrangement with ManipeF1. ChicaneF1's use for this article is purely for its statistics. An example page for use here would be http://www.chicanef1.com/racetit.pl?year=1995&gp=Japanese%20GP. Note detailed pages on qualifications and other parts of the race. It offers more detailed statistics compared to [Formula1.com]. Per WP:V, the references are used to ChicaneF1 as a published source of the information cited. In this case of each use of this reference--
 * None of the information above addresses the question of reliability per WP:V. What published, independent secondary reliable sources discuss it or establish its reliability? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Official race name = XXI Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix  (official name of race, multiple sources cite this).
 * It was the 16th and penultimate race of the 1995 Formula One season.  (a basic 1995 race calendar page could be used if necessary).
 * Schumacher clinched his tenth pole position of his career, in his Benetton B195 with a time of 1:38.023. . -- the use of this source is to establish that this was Schumacher's tenth pole position, a fact that would otherwise need a list of Schumacher poles to delineate which one it was.
 * The race was held mainly under damp conditions with a race start time of 14:00 JST (GMT +9). -- telecast information from the BBC or ESPN back this up. Would a reliable television source be preferable?


 * Please let me know on this site.

-- Guroadrunner (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the use of gpracing192.net, It is used to explain succinctly that the title chase was wrapped up mathematically by Schumacher:
 * There was only a maximum of twenty points on offer for the remaining two races, meaning it was impossible for Hill to catch Schumacher. 


 * This is factual, as Hill had run out of races to beat Schumacher on points. I am not sure of another source that states this directly, and to tabulate and explain the F1 points system ourselves risks WP:OR. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To the best of my understanding, doing simple mathematical calculations on verifiable figures is not considered original research. AlexJ (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't follow most of the disjointed commentary above, but I don't see any answers that establish reliability of any of these sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comment, I've replied over at WP:MOTOR/SOURCES with further information and am awaiting a reply. I am sorry that ya'll seem to think I'm out to get you or something, but the easiest method to prove the sources reliable would be some sort of media mention saying that they are reliable. Or if an already reliable source uses that site for sources. To follow up on the Jonathan Davies point above, is he a well-known F1 journalist? Author? And who is ManipeF1? Remember that we aren't F1 fans, throwing out names without explaining who they are isn't going to help us much. Explain it to us like you would your girlfriend, we expect it! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt a website like Autosport is going to advertise one of their rivals websites, and say "Hey, go over to ChicaneF1", it's a very good website. Anyway it's people questioning the quality of our articles. No other website would say, "Hey, it's reliable", would they? Seeing as you want me to prove it's reliable I will. Right on this page on the ChicaneF1 website, it says that the race was under wet conditions. This can be clearly verified here and it can be verified here with the line "In the race - started in damp conditions.....". The weather conditions can also be verified by watching the live broadcast of the race. The qualifying times located here can be verified in the live broadcast on the grid rundown, but also here and also here. Same for Gale Force F1.com, their qualifying times for the race are located here which match the exact same times as the previous two sources (note: best time from each driver for that source only).D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is Jonathan Davies? THat might help the problem along, I honestly don't KNOW why it is significant that he publishes the site. Who is Manipe F1, and if they are reliable, the fact that they get their information from Chicane F1 would help establish the reliablity of Chicane F1. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know who it is. It sounds like, juat because the person isn't notable, that the website isn't reliable, when it is. I've backed up my claim above. D.M.N. (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments by Dweller

Hi. A few suggestions: More as I find 'em. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Make a separate subsection pertaining to qualifying
 * Done. If anyone however feels that they are "ugly" feel free to remove them.
 * You could merge them into "Practice and qualifying". Should be on the same hierarchy level as Background and the Race --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Find some images: drivers, the circuit, cars, anything! Graphs also work. Maybe of lap times or something
 * Maybe. I'm probably going to insert an image of Schumacher in the Benetton with a proper fiar use rationale seeing as no free ones are available. D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't wait! Flickr will probably have some pix of the circuit... you can probably get a properly licensed one. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. There aren't any free images of the Benetton that Schumacher raced in on Flickr. :$ D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One sentence of response from commentators/media to the race is really not satisfactory, I'm afraid
 * I've looked at many sources while expanding the article, and there really aren't many comments from the media at all. I'll continue to have a look, and of course, if there is anything that's worth of inclusion, I'll include it. D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't find stuff online, many large libraries will have a newspaper archive, either on paper or as images. You'll be able to get access to the newspapers from the day after the race. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never, ever go to the library at my age, so I strongly doubt I'll be going any time soon. And I strongly doubt the libraries near me will have access to newspapaer archives. D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the arbitrary cut-off of "only the top six positions are included for both sets of standings."?
 * Because points back then only go down to sixth place. Also, I feel it's a little pointless having drivers on there who have only scored three, two, or one point, therefore I feel it has to be cut off at some point, and I feel sixth place in the championship is a satisfactory point. D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The top 6 scoring in the race is nothing to do with the top 6 in the standings, and I think you know that! What you're saying is that top 6 was an arbitrary position. 6 is an odd number (unless you think in dozens and half dozens. I suggest you make it 5 or 10 ... and also include any other drivers who scored points in this race, perhaps as a footnote. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to make it the top 5 positions. I haven't done the footnote thing as the drivers who scored points is noted in the race table in the far right column. D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnote 17 is almost an article. If it needs to be that long, it needs to be in the text.
 * The article length for footnote 17 is very long, and the reader might not know which bit of the reference to look at, hence why I've put the little section of the article in the quote. D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't really understand that. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)