Wikipedia:Peer review/Brabham BT19/archive1

Brabham BT19
Article currently at GA status. Hopefully with the comments we get, me and 4u1e will hopefully be able to improve it, and possibly nominate it for FA status in the forthcoming months. Davnel03 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By way of further information, the article is about a one-off F1 world championship winning racing car, used by Australian driver Jack Brabham in 1966 and 1967. All comments welcome. 4u1e 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from James086

 * Make sure whenever units are mentioned there is always the metric equivalent in brackets eg. the 2nd paragraph of "Engine and transmission".
 * MOS says there should be a non-breaking space:   between a number and the unit. Instead of 5 litre, use 5&amp;nbsp;litre so that you don't get the number on one line and the litre/inches/pounds on the next line.
 * ✅ Davnel03 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The units should also be written out in text and abbreviated in brackets (see the second dot point of WP:UNITS). Instead of "1 m (3 ft)" use "1 metre (3 ft)".
 * Can't find that.
 * It's there all right, see for example 'lb', which should be written out in full as 'pounds'. Now, we also have the option that "where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." (from the same source). Any feel for whether to do this or not? It's actually what I've done already for most units. What's making me hesitate slightly is that lb isn't a particularly obvious abbreviation for pounds, if you're not familiar with it. On the other hands writing pounds (and the other units) in full every time will get quite tiresome in the chassis and engine sections, since they come up rather a lot. I'll have a play with it and see if I can come up with something that looks good to me.
 * That brings up another issue: I haven't provided conversions of power figures. I guess they should go in kW? 4u1e 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added power in kW and fuel consumption in L/100km, which seems to be the metric equivalent - anyone metric care to comment on that? The UK's a bit schizophrenic when it comes to units... 4u1e 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Metric power is kW and consumption is L/100 km. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Two more unit questions: Is there a metric equivalent for wheel size in inches? Does anyone have an equivalent for psi bmep for torque? I'm even sure that really is a torque unit, although it's what the source uses. 4u1e 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The metric equivalent to inches (when regarding wheel diameter) is millimetres (from WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions). That means I must now go change Maserati MC12. Also you're correct with Nm. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Converted bmep to torque in lb/ft, with Nm as the alternative. 4u1e 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "As of 2004, BT19 was in Australia, where it was still occasionally being driven at demonstration events by Jack Brabham, by then in his 70s." is a awkward sentence. It should be either "As of 2004, the BT19 is in Australia..." or "In 2004 the BT19 was in Australia..." also continue the tense through the rest of the sentence. I added "the" because all throughout the rest of the article it's referred to as "the BT19" and Brabham is quoted calling it "the BT19".
 * ✅ - used second version. Davnel03 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm I looked for more images and they are all copyrighted.
 * There are some on Flickr whose owners might be persuaded to change their minds - I can't really see much reason for them to be 'all rights reserved' - but I've not yet persuaded anyone to actually change their licensing.... 4u1e 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no major flaws in the article and I think it's well on it's way to becoming featured. I just realised that I gave a rather bad review compared to the one 4u1e gave about the Ferrari P4/5. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review, James. I don't think its a bad review: you've pointed out the things that you think need doing, what else could you do?! You've spotted things that I completely missed, which is the point of the exercise, after all. Cheers. 4u1e 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The359
I do not have too many things to add, just some things that stuck out to me as odd:
 * In 1966 Australian driver Jack Brabham won his third world championship driving the car, which was the first bearing its driver's name to win a world championship race. - The sentence starts talking about Brabham the driver winning the championship, but after the comma it describes the fact that the BT19 won the constructor's championship. I'd use a semicolon or break it into two sentences entirely to note the fact that the BT19 was the first car to win the seperate constructor's championship while being driven by a driver of the same name.
 * ✅ Davnel03 09:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Old Nail' - I'm not sure on the MoS of nicknames, but this possibly should be italicized?
 * ✅ Davnel03 09:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Repetition of names:
 * ...but a disagreement between Brabham and Tauranac over Tauranac's role in the racing team... - I'd replace the second Tauranac with the latter's.
 * ✅ Davnel03 09:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...designed by Ron Tauranac for Jack Brabham's Brabham Racing Organisation (BRO) for the 1965 season... - Not exactly a problem per se since they are two different entities, but the two Brabhams together sounds off. I'd simply re-word the sentence so that the two Brabhams do not appear alongside each other.
 * More complicated than it looks, but done. 4u1e 13:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The potentially very powerful flat-16 unit's development was abandoned - Very sounds a bit weasel-ish.
 * Changed to 'more powerful', a straight comparison. 4u1e 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Use of the term 'Brabham' I think should be without the single quotes.
 * ✅ Davnel03 09:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotes need some work on ending punctuation. If a quote is a full sentence statement, it needs the punctuation inside the quotes.  If it is a fragment of a statement, then the punctuation can go outside.
 * I'd work the BT19's chassis number into one of the existing paragraphs instead of leaving it as a single sentence alone at the bottom.
 * I know, it's been bugging me for ages, but I haven't yet come up with a good place to put it. I'll have another think... 4u1e 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Better? 4u1e 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's the perfect place, but yes, it is a better place for it. The359 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm open to other suggestions! :-) It's really an infobox kind of thing, but it wouldn't really work there for most cars, since there's normally more than one of each type. 4u1e 13:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On the car template at the top:
 * Formula Libre is wikilinked but Tasman Series is not. Although Tasman Series is wikilinked in the article, I think it is ok to Wikilink it again in the chart.
 * Fastest Laps - I assume NK stands for None Known? I'd type that out for those who can't figure it out.
 * Done. 4u1e 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that covers all the tiny things I found. The359 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for those points, 359. Cheers. 4u1e 14:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:Bobbacon
I've looked through your article and understood it well. Having no prior knowledge I thought it was certainly clear and I didn't get lost. As i'm not sure about the actual technical stuff i'll comment more on the layout etc..


 * At the end of the article there is a jump between the 1960's and 2004 where it mentions the car is in Australia. Has it taken part in any historical races/rallys/exhibitions (with a starring role) between these dates? Are the demonstation events mentioned notable (with thier own wikipedia article to link to)?
 * Good point, I'll look into it, although sourcing that bit might be tricky. 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Made a wee start on this, but need to decide which refs I use. Plus I'm trying to confirm for definite that the car is still in the hands of Repco, which has recently been sold to private equity firm. 4u1e 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a public-domain picture for the one in the infobox? I had to change an article because at FA status the image needs to be public-domain for use on the main-page. Perhaps an image of the car would be better placed, with the logo somewhere else in the article? I presume its difficult/impossible to get a PD image of the logo.
 * You mean the logo? No, and I don't think there can be, by definition. If it were to reach FA and go on the front page, we would need a free use picture of the car instead. I haven't found one of those yet, either, but at least it's possible in theory! 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the references there are loads of book resources (what wikipedia needs really) but I like to consult other web sources as I live in a country where I dont speak the language and so can't consult a library. Are there any more web resources that can be added?
 * I haven't found any good ones yet, but it's a good point and I will look again. 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is well written and referenced as far as I can see. Hope these few comments help, Bobbacon 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, definitely helpful. Thanks! 4u1e 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from GURoadrunner
An amazing read, and I have little to add here. My main concerns regard the lede. Comments:
 * The lede looks a little long as a single paragraph. I would chop it a bit into multiple grafs - maybe three? Personally, I would strongly suggest a graf break that sets off a new paragraph at "For the 1966 Formula One season..." Mind that as a newsman I have a bias for short paragraphs.
 * I've split into two, but put the split one sentence earlier than you suggest. Otherwise the mention of its original purpose 'hangs' with no real relation to the rest of the first para. 4u1e 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Facts mentioned in both the lede and the article (such as the nickanem "Old Nail") have their footnotes/references only in the article body and not the lede. WP:LEAD doesn't say anything on it, but I'm not sure if the refs should be in the lede instead.
 * Opinion seems to be divided on that one. There is a line of thought which goes something like this: 1. Everything in the lead/lede is meant to be covered in the article. 2. The coverage in the article will be more detailed than that in the lead. 3. The more detailed material in the article will have to be inline cited. 4. Therefore nothing is added by repeating the references in the less detailed lead. Some counter that by saying Ah! But what if I doubt something I have read in the lead? To which I can only reply that surely the most logical thing to do if you doubt the lead is to at least read the rest of the article! Long story short - I'm happy with this way of doing it and I'll fight my corner if need be at FAC :) 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, for the infobox, is it not possible to know how many F1 fastest laps the BT19 had? I saw that, for example, "race starts" was separated by series, so if possible, could it say "not known - # fastest laps in Formula One" ?
 * It's just harder to get the information. However, I don't think I could honestly say (yet) it was impossible to get the information, so I'll go away and look harder! 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, actually F1 (champ and non-champ) was quite easy really. I just looked at the Formula One Archives, which match with the (less complete) hardcopy references. Anyone know a good site for Tasman results? 4u1e 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Checked against Tasman Series and CAMS Gold Star, and there are no more fastest laps for BT19, so I make that 4 in total. Good point GuRoadrunner, thanks for raising it! 4u1e 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Praise) I think the way the article is sectioned is one of its strong points in how it is formatted.
 * Ta very much! 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lastly, to test my reading comprehension ;-) : When you say "Australian company Repco developed a new V8 engine for Brabham's use in 1966, but a disagreement between Brabham and Tauranac over the latter's role in the racing team left no time to develop a new car to take it. Instead, the BT19 chassis was modified for the job." -- I am correct in reading from just the lede that the BT19 was modified to take the V8 and then raced - i.e. it did not have a predecessor that was modified and became the BT19? I don't think so, right?
 * Yes, the BT19 chassis was built under that designation in 1965 (for the flat 16 project) and was later modified specifically to take the Repco engine, but retaining the same designation. I've changed it to 'existing BT19 chassis' to make the point a little clearer. 4u1e 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from AlexJ
Overall the article was an excellent read. It manages to explain the technical aspects of the car without excessive jargon and neatly covers both the physical car and it's achievements & performances. Anyway, onto the feedback:


 * I think the lead should mention the years the car competed in the F1WC somewhere as time-frames are important to establish early on.
 * I've added a sentence stating the years they competed in Formula One in the lead. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Formula One Portal box. I think it would be better at the bottom of the article with the other navigation templates and categories. It's bordering on being a self-reference which I believe should generally be avoided in the main body of the article.
 * I've moved it to the external links section. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Formula One is the highest form of single-seater racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), motor sport's world governing body. - I'm guessing there's a reason for that sentence being there but I dispute that reason, whatever it may be! Else we'd have to explain what F1 is in every F1 related article. I feel having "Brabham BT19 is a Formula One racing car  in the lead and the motor racing world championship'' bit provides enough context for people to know what's being discussed and then there's a Wikilink provided if they want to know more.
 * I've removed the sentence totally. Yeah - you're right, we would of had to have that in every Formula One related article!! Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now me, I'm not so sure I agree, but if the consensus runs this way, then I'm happy for it to go. The reasoning for having it in is that it does establish notability and give more context. In some articles I'd argue more strongly for it to remain - Mario Andretti being one where it is needed to differentiate F1 from all his other racing activities. Here, it's much less of an issue. 4u1e 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Like its contemporary, the Lotus 39, the BT19 was built to use Coventry Climax's FWMW flat-16 engine, but was never raced in that form. - I think I'm right in reading this as both the L39 and BT19 were built to use the engine and they both never raced in that form. It's a little unclear if this is the case or if the BT19 and L39 were both built to accommodate the engine and the BT19 was never raced in that form. Perhaps changing it to Like its contemporary, the Lotus 39, the BT19 was built to use Coventry Climax's FWMW flat-16 engine, but neither raced in that form. makes this clearer.
 * Changed the sentence to your version. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that version is that you start the sentence having one subject (BT19) and end it with two (Lotus 39 and BT19). It could be written as 'The Brabham BT19 and its comtemporaty the Lotus 39 were both designed to use Coventry-Climax'sFWMW flat 16 engine, but neither was raced in that form'. I'll substitue with that form. 4u1e 14:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This agreement was not reached until November 1965, however, which left no time for MRD to design a car for their new Australian-built engine. - The however sits a little awkwardly in the sentence and to me it appears to flow better if moved to the start: "However this agreement was not reached until November 1965, which left no time...'''.
 * Changed again. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And again - Davnel's version improved it, but in reading that I realised that 'However' was unnecessary anyway! I've deleted it. 4u1e 14:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The bodywork is glass-reinforced plastic, finished in Brabham's normal racing colours of green with gold trimming around the nose. Brabham's usual racing colours sounds slightly better to me, but probably others will disagree and it's a very minor point so whatever you think sounds best.
 * I'm keeping that the same for the moment. In my view "normal racing colours" sounds better than "usual racing colours". Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Being extra picky, AlexJ is right: usual is probably more precisely the correct word here. Compare normal and usual. (Accepting that wiktionary is not the last word in accurate dictionaries...) 4u1e 14:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * before taking over a BT20 for the final two races of the championship season. The car was used again at three of the first four championship races in the 1967 Formula One season, taking second place at the 1967 Dutch Grand Prix. - Out of interest, could you find any reason for reverting back to the BT19 at the start of 1967?
 * I'll have to do some research on that point. I'm guessing they had teething problems with the BT20, but as I said, I'll need to do research on that point. Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they'd sold the BT20s to someone else and needed a tried and tested car in case the BT24s weren't up to scratch. As Davnel says, poking around may uncover something.

That's pretty much all I can come up with for now, the rest of it looked really good. AlexJ 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, they are very helpful! Davnel03 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'll second that! 4u1e 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)