Wikipedia:Peer review/2006 Formula One World Championship/archive1

2006 Formula One season
This article I believe is very, very good, but I wanted to get the opinions on the article by other users, hence the reason why I removed it from Feature Article Candidate. Main things I'd like to get comments on include:


 * Opening section of article (Season Review)
 * Whether it goes in-depth into the subject matter or whether more detail is needed.
 * Missing information that could be inserted.
 * Detail that isn't really relevant to the subject matter.


 * Tables
 * Is their any mistakes that need to be removed.


 * Pictures
 * Are their some pictures that aren't exactly needed in the article.
 * Does it break up the text too often.

Also comment on the article in general and what is the main little piece of text that doesn't fit in with the text. Davnel03 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, my initial thoughts for improvement:


 * The opening section could do with a comment (with reference, of course) about how the season was viewed (e.g. exciting, controversial etc.)
 * The article needs to be copy-edited, to check for spelling and grammatical errors (e.g. "Renault's Giancarlo Fisichella race in wet track during Chinese Grand Prix"), and links (e.g. "Grand Chelem" links to a list of F1 records, and not to the specific section.)
 * Some parts of the text are marked as needing citations.
 * The image of Schumacher should stay as it captures a pivotal moment of the season, but the other two could be replaced with better ones.
 * The tables are fine, in my opinion.--Diniz 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A very quick first thought, I'm a bit suspicious of the overlap between the 'Background' and the 'Team changes' and 'Driver changes' sections. The latter probably first appeared when the season was some way off, and were a useful way of noting upcoming changes, but should probably now be merged into either the background to the season or the season review as appropriate. 4u1e 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody will probably produce a list of automated peer review comments for this article at some point - they can be a bit difficult to get your head round, but I have found them very useful in the past. Make use of them! 4u1e 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For Featured Article status, the writing will need a lot of work. It's quite 'jumpy' - the logical flow of concepts and ideas needs more work. Try reading each sentence as if you knew nothing about the topic and considering whether it makes sense in its own right and whether it follows on logically from what goes before. Even better, get someone who knows nothing about F1 to read it and tell you whether they can follow it. This is a really difficult one to get right, and probably means getting lots of people to look at it.4u1e 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)