Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 Canadian Grand Prix/archive2

2007 Canadian Grand Prix
previous PR

Just failed FAC so I'm giving it a PR. Buc 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from AlexJ

 * Not all my comments at FA have been addressed - I provided a handful of examples which have mostly been corrected but the overall points I was making applied to the whole article and these haven't been touched. Please do not use ✅ - I will decide when I think my point has been resolved satisfactorily. Some more examples of what's wrong with it.


 * From the lead: and the first Formula One race ever won by a black driver. - Why the ever? It adds nothing.
 * From the FAC: From the lead The race was filled with many incidents resulting in an unprecedented four safety car periods,[2] including the violent impact of Robert Kubica's BMW Sauber against a concrete retaining wall, that he escaped with a sprained ankle and concussion. - The race was filled with many incidents comes across as a bit of a weak sentence and I don't think the latter part (that he escaped with...) even makes sense. ✅. - Err no, I said the The race was filled with many incidents sounded weak and it's still there. It's almost the same as saying "a lot of stuff happened".


 * Read it again it says "The race had many incidents". Buc 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again. Despite the slight rewording, it still basically says 'a lot of stuff happened' which comes across as a fairly meaningless sentence. If stuff didn't happen, then it shouldn't have an article. Instead you could say "The safety car was deployed an unprecedented four times as a result of crashes including for the violent impact of Robert Kubica's BMW Sauber against a concrete retaining wall, from which he suffered a sprained ankle and concussion." - This cuts straight to the point, although the sentence is still quite long so could do with being split up. AlexJ 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From the FAC: Referencing is also badly done throughout. In one paragraph we have [10][11][12][10][12][12][10][11][14] scattered throughout. This is a lot of repetition so unless absolutely necessary to go at the end of the sentence move them to the end of the paragraph. Also check that if the job done by [11] for example is also covered by [10] and [12] then remove [11]. This is a problem right through the article and breaks up the readability of the prose. * Is this part of FA criteria? Buc 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC) - Well no, it's not a requirement of FAC but criteria 1a) is a requirement. If you're not so constrained by the location of the references, 1a) becomes easier to obtain. FA should represent our best work not just ticking the boxes of FA criteria and turning down a valid suggestion to improve the article just because it isn't on the checklist goes against the spirit of what a FA is.
 * What happened afterwards? I'd like like to know the consequences of, for example, Kubica's accident. There's no mention of him missing the next race due to the injury sustained in this race. Have a post-race section where the loose ends can be tied up.
 * The last two pragraphs cover reaction to the race but I will try and find a ref for the stuff about Kubica. Buc 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * More than just reaction is required, the reader will want to know events that occurred as a result of the race. Did Fisi&Massa faced further sanctions for the their DSQ for example? AlexJ 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well no not as far as I know. Buc 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although initial reports said that he had broken his leg, he escaped with a sprained ankle and concussion. - Escaped isn't quite the tone required here. It's a bit sensationalist for an encylopedia. AlexJ 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * causing Scott Speed to go straight into the back of the Australian's Red Bull car. again something you'd expect to hear in a magazine report not an encyclopedia. There's quite a lot of things like this in the article. It's important not to write like a magazine report because the audience may not be familiar with the sport and common parlance within the sport like this may not make sense and also we should be factual and avoid over-dramatising things. Let the facts indicate the severity of the incident for themselves.
 * This resulted in a red flag period, 10:33 a.m.–10:50 a.m. local time. That's not a proper sentence.
 *  Possibly frustrated by dropping back to third, Alonso ran across the grass at turn one again on lap 15. That's bordering on OR and is pure speculation as it stands. There was nothing in the ref [25] to back it up, and personally, unless Alonso or someone close in the team confirmed it, then I feel it has no value in the article.


 * The ref does back it up. It says "No doubt frustrated by his predicament, on lap 15 Alonso made his second mistake at turn one, running across the grass and losing a further two seconds to his team-mate." Buc 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt frustrated by his predicament does not equal possibly frustrated by dropping back to third. You've interpreted a meaning from the reference and in any case, that's just the guy who's written the articles opinion on it. It's still total speculation. AlexJ 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Both were later black-flagged from the race on lap 51. - Our audience may not be familiar with the term black-flagged.
 * There's a few points to start you off. Please remember that what I'm suggesting are some examples and the concept behind most of my points needs applying to the whole article not just the one example I raised. AlexJ 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Pyrope
Comments: (p.s. Sorry for the delay, been busy!) (p.p.s. I haven't had time to fully read the comments above, so if anything overlaps then I apologise now.)
 * 1. Jargon. It is creeping in everywhere, and it shouldn't really. Assume zero prior knowledge at all times. I don't regard obvious jargon to be too much of a problem, in fact it can make the text more lively, but each concept needs introducing in "proper English" the first time you use it. For example, Lewis Hamilton is referred to as a "rookie" in the lead section. As an example of what I mean by introducing it properly, you could rephrase that sentence to: "The race was won by Lewis Hamilton, in his first season in the top formula, who started from pole position on the grid; it was the rookie's first Formula One victory and the first Formula One race won by a black driver." Then you can use "rookie" as you wish from that point on. Other examples exist.
 * 2. Punctuation and syntax. It is obvious where you have editied out previous material, as you don't seem to have gone through and actually read the edited text. Again in the lead you have "four safety car periods, It also included". Apart from not reading very well, the punctuation is so obviously wrong I'm surprised that it is there. Please proof read everything after you make changes. Othe punctuation could use some attention as well, try reading it back and actually pausing at every comma. Then you can see whether or not it it is needed. For example, the comma in the middle of "the kerbs at turn 8, to avoid further" can go. The opposite also applies.
 * 3. More phrasing. The sentence "A test session was held on May 17 and May 18 at the Paul Ricard circuit, with the track set up to replicate the conditions of the Canadian Grand Prix for the final 2 days" has multiple issues. Firstly, you don't need to repeat "May". Secondly, where is this "Paul Ricard" you mention, I thought they were a distillery? ;-) Thirdly, the Canadian Grand Prix is something short of two hours in length, so how can a track be set up to replicate its last 2 days? As the dates of the test session indicate that it was only two days in total you could get rid of "for the final 2 days" completely. I assume that you got rid of the full test session details, but eve so, that phrase reads much more elegantly as "with the track set up for the final two days to replicate the conditions of the Canadian Grand Prix". Again, this is an example of a lack of proof reading. Finally, sums less than ten should be written out in words at all times. Check the rest of the text for similar issues.
 * 4. Ok, more phrasing and general style points. The sentence "Giancarlo Fisichella finished in second less than two hundredths of a second behind Raikkonen, he also completed the second most laps with 111, behind James Rossiter with 131" is another good example of a single sentence containing multiple flaws. Firstly, this is the first time that we have met Fisichella, so who does he drive for? Secondly, this is the second time that Rossiter pops up, but his name is linked again. Third, the sentence covers two separate subjects (fastsest time and total laps) and so would be better split in two. Fourth, the final subclause sounds a bit odd. It would be better rephrased as "Fisichella also completed 111 laps, the second most of the day, behind James Rossiter's 131." Trying to put my finger on what is wrong is tricky, but I think it boils down to a slight sloppiness in phrasing and a tendency to "magaziney" tone. Finally, and I believe that I have mentioned this before, Fizi did not "finish in second", it is not a race. He can "end the day with the second fastest time", but as testing isn't a competition you can't be awarded a placing.
 * 5. "During the two weeks leading up to the Grand Prix, Räikkönen and Felipe Massa released statements to the press saying that they believed that everything will be different in Canada...". Different from what? Actually, this whole paragraph is a bit of a nothing. So the two top teams both publically said that they were favourites to win, so what? It would be notable if one team admitted that they hadn't a chance, but not for them to say thay they were expecting to win. If you want to keep the paragraph then it needs a bit more substance; let's have some reasons in there. Why would conditions favour Ferrari? Why were McLaren "realistic" about "dominating"? This second point is actually also a bit odd, they most certainly couldn't be sure that they would dominate. Having read the actual source it is clear that Whitmarsh was "realistic about their potential to dominate", a very different prospect. Be careful that you are properly conveying the sense of a particular quote or reference.
 * Added that on request. I also fail to see the piont of it. Buc 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6. "Pedro de la Rosa was third fastest despite his engine failing." A classic non-sequiteur. Unless his engine failed on the lap that he set his fastest time then the two points aren't directly linked. You could rephrase: "Pedro de la Rosa was third fastest despite completing fewer laps than many others owing to his engine failing early in the day". Hence, his engine failure resulted in fewer laps, which in turn resulted in a lesser chance of posting a quick time. Be absolutely sure that the points you are linking in a sentence or paragraph actually link in the manner that they are presented.
 * 7. "The testing was stopped twice, first when Adrian Sutil's and then Jenson Button's engines failed." Ok, firstly it is either simply "Testing", or "The testing session", "The testing" sounds like a bizarre ritual that should involve burning torches and hot coals... Secondly, the current phrasing makes it sound as though the two engine failures were combined and constituted just one reason for the hiatus. A simple switch in the positions of the words "when" and "first" would cure this. Finally, each driver only had one engine go, this shouldn't be pluralised. Minor tweaks all, but improve the readability of the sentence no end. Read everything slowly to yourself, out loud if it helps, then these odd sentences (which are littered throughout this article) will stand out.
 * 8. "end of both the 2 practice sessions" is again a it lumpy, you can say "the two" or "both two". I'd go for "the two" as the start of the next sentence repeats the word "both".
 * 9. "the Spaniard outpaced his own team mate" is a tortology, his team mate is automatically "his own". Check through the text, there are a few other instances of this sort of error.
 * 10. "BMW Sauber were pleased with 5th place in the first session and 7th in the second from Nick Heidfeld despite his report that the car was was "very difficult to drive", but Robert Kubica's car suffered a fuel leak resulting in him being unable to post a timed lap in the morning session and 12th place in the second session. Kubica also told the press after the fuel leak, "the car has been quite difficult to drive."" Ok, the first sentence is too long. Break it between the two drivers' comments. The Kubica section is badly phrased. How was it that his "car suffered a fuel leak resulting in him being ... 12th place in he second session". Do you see how that sounds wrong? It could result in himbeing only 12th fastest in the second session though... Make sure that any subclauses maintain grammatical continuity with one another. Finally, notwithstanding Alex's comments above, every direct quotation needs an adjacent inline citation. I would follow Alex's suggestion about leaving citations to the end of a paragraph if the paragraph is fairly general, but where a quote is involved to do need to be able to attribute that quote to a specific reference.
 * 11. "Honda stayed behind its customer team Super Aguri in the first practice, but got Barrichello above the Super Aguri car of Takuma Sato in the second practice". Stick to behind/in front or above/below, don't mix them. Besides this, I'd prefer that you simply state that they "were slower" in the first instance, and by saying that they "stayed behind" makes it sound almost as though it were a conscious decision. Was it?
 * 12. "ended his practice day by going into the wall at turn 7 on old tyres". Again poor; what was his car doing on old tyres, surely it should have been on a race track? Try: "After Renault put old tyres on his car, Heikki Kovalainen ended his practice day by crashing into the wall at turn seven, damaging the suspension."
 * 13. "At the end of the afternoon practice, Mark Webber slowed down unexpectedly before turn 8, causing Scott Speed to drive into the back of the Webber's Red Bull." Add the bold, delete the italics. Really, you ought to proof read at all times, that's what the "preview" function is for. I might have mentioned this before.
 * 14. "with a broken suspension". You can have a suspension linkage, a suspension keel, a suspension wishbone, or any number of other components, but you can't have a suspension on its own. You could also be more specific, which set of suspension was broken?
 * 15. "Alonso ran across the grass at turn one again on lap 15" This is the second time that you have mentioned his further rallycross sessions, you need to delete the first instance (i.e. "ran off the track at turn one a further three times during the race").
 * That's because it was the second time it happened. I've even been told that this happened a third time although I don't remember it. Buc 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that you have repeated this information. At the moment the information reads like a countdown "he ran off and would do so a further three times; he ran off again and would do so another two times, her ran of..." etc. You only need mention an incident once.  Pyrope  10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16. "Some belived that these mistakes were due to him being frustrated by dropping back to third". This is still weasely. It is entirely speculation and has no place here. Report facts. Delete the entire sentence.
 * It's a fact that some 'thought the mistake was due to frustration. Buc 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That reference doesn't show that some thought the mistakes were due to frustration. It shows that an ITV-F1 hack thought that the mistake was due to frustration. And if the sentence read "A journalist on the ITV-F1 website believed that these mistakes were due to him being frustrated by dropping back to third" as it should, I'd be thinking "Who cares!". If this journalist isn't important enough to get a byline on his article, then his opinions aren't important or significant. AlexJ 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just that journalist who thought it. Lots of people mentioned it. I guess I could try and find another report mentioning it. Buc 16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 17. "Hamilton had opened up a lead over Heidfeld of nineteen seconds by lap 21". Again, this just doesn't flow properly. Try: "By lap 21 Hamilton had established a lead of nineteen seconds over Heidfeld."
 * 18. "On lap 22, Adrian Sutil crashed at turn four, and the safety car had to be deployed, Hamilton had pitted just before this" change to: "On lap 22 Adrian Sutil crashed at turn four and the safety car had to be deployed; Hamilton had pitted just before the incident".
 * 19. Followingon from the above sentence, the next sentence starts "At that point the pit lane was closed..." At what point? At the point that Hamilton made his stop; at the point that the accident happened; after the accident; when the safety car was deployed? When?
 * 20. Following on... "When the pit lane was re-opened and the rest of the field pitted, Massa and Giancarlo Fisichella left the pit lane when the red light was still on. Both were later disqualified from the race on lap 51." Massa and Fisi did not leave the pits when the rest of the field pitted, it was after they pitted. You need a full stop in there, and delete the word "and". The final sentence is also slightly awkward. You could say that "both were later disqualified from the race", "both were disqualified from the race on lap 51", or that "both were consequently disqualified from the race on lap 51, following investigation by the race stewards". I'd go for the latter, it goes some way to explaining why there was such a delay.
 * 21. "first lap afterwards" is inelegant, and could be simply replaced by the words "next lap".
 * 22. I think that you could get more out of the Kubica crash as it happened. No mention of the fact that his feet were actually sticking out of the front of the car by the time it stopped! A compare and conrast with Martin Brundle's nasty accident in his Tyrrell, Johnny Herbert's F3 crash, or Martin Donnelly's accident testing a Lotus might be informative, all of which were similar head-on collisions, all resulted in exposure of their lower legs, and all of which nearly ended the drivers' careers (actually did in Donnelly's case). Listening to the ITV coverage you could hear the lump in MB's throat. Some historical persepctive on just how incredible his walking away was would be nice.
 * 23. Following the short section on Kubica's crash you start talking about the subsequent safety car periods, and then you jump straight back to the accident. This is an example of the mixed up chronology that I mentioned during the FAC process. You menion in the lead that there were four safety car periods, so just treat them as they crop up.
 * 24. Dust? What kind of dust? Hoover bag dust? Why did they put dust down on the track?
 * 25. Make sure that only the first instance of a term is wikilinked. Super Aguri has three links, for example!
 * 26. "while Davidson hit a groundhog on the racetrack" is a repetition from only the previous paragraph, delete it.
 * 27. "meant that the safety car had to be deployed on four occasions", as you have mentioned more than once before.
 * It's mentioned in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 28. "Barrichello dropped ten places on his final pit stop", from where to where? Was he leading? Did he miss out on a point finish? Your readers aren't Marvo the Memory Man, help them out a bit with some details. Tell a story.
 * 29. "strengthened when Sato, in a Super Aguri...", another multiple repetition from up the page.
 * 30. "...overtook the reigning world champion to move into sixth place around the outside of the final chicane, having switched to the harder tyres on his final stop". This is all over the shop. Keep relevant details together. Sixth place is not located around the outside of the final chicane, for example. You mean "overtook the reigning Word Champion [it's a title, it needs caps] around the outside of the final chicane, to move into sixth place." And where do the tyres fit in? Was this Sato or Alonso? How did the tyre compound affect the move? Was this because Alonso had harder tyres, or despite Sato having them? Were the harder tyres more grippy at this stage of the race? Again a non-sequiteur as it stands, and needs a little more flesh on its bones to make sense.
 * 31. "Alexander Wurz drove through the field from 19th". Again, my natural facitiousness compels me to ask, what was Wurtz doing in a field? Was he driving a tractor? You also have mentions in various parts of the text about harder, hard, soft and super soft tyres. This is confusing, try to keep consistent terminology.
 * 32. How did the safety car periods assist Kovalainen? What was special about his use of them that he managed to rise so far up the order? At the moment you state this almost as if it were a usual thing and a forgone conclusion.

This article need thorough and detailed proof reading. There are some horrible, obvious flaws that really should not be there if you are at all serious about asking people to spend time reading an article. You need to have the courtesy to present them with something which is as good as you can make it. Unless you completely flunked your GCSE English exam then there are many many errors in here which you ought to be embarassed about leaving in. Although I have given you plenty of specific sentences as examples, the general comments apply to the entire document, and are certainly not limited to those examples which I have chosen to highlight. Just because I haven't mentioned a specific problem does not indicate that it doesn't exist. You need to spend time reading this article slowly and thoroughly, do not be tempted to skim through and assume that is enough. I have just spent two and a half hours reading, thinking and writing these comments. It probably would have been better use of my time to simply do a proper copyedit straight away, but as you have shown a genuine desire to improve yourself as well as this article I thought it only fair to explain my thinking in detail. Sorry if some comments seem a bit picky or harsh, but the standard for prose in the FA criteria is that it is of near-professional quality. That is a tough ask, and will take much time and effort. I'll come back and do a copyedit when you have had a crack at the issues which Alex and I have raised here so far (and any others which subsequent reviewers make, of course!). I hope that by spending so much time slicing and dicing this text you can better appreciate my comment in the FAC that this would need a near-complete rewrite to get to FA status. There are few sentences, and no paragraphs in the entire article, that are as good as they could be. However, you have a good base to start from and an interesting and engaging subject. You could really use more historical context for Kubica's accident and Hamilton's victory and this would lift the article above the mundane. Good luck with the work!  Pyrope  15:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)