Wikipedia:Peer review/Brabham Racing Organisation/archive1

Brabham Racing Organisation
Article on an interesting F1 team. Looking far more comprehensive these days. Still quite a lot of tidying up to do and much more referencing to really tie it all down. Before I really get into the refining of all that though, with a view to heading for FA status, I'm looking for feedback on:
 * Structure of the article - does splitting it out into so many sections work?
 * Is the length and level of detail about right?
 * Does this article work for a 'lay' reader? Have I assumed too much knowledge, or conversely, spelled things out in too much detail?

Thanks in advance for your views. 4u1e 19:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (By the way, I'm not likely to reply in the next couple of days, but I should be around from Wednesday. 4u1e 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
 * I definately qualify a a 'lay' reader on any sort of auto racing, so there is way too much information there for me to digest. I would definately place a shortcut to Portal:Formula One one the page. I went ahead and linked "the 1966 and 1967 Drivers and Constructors championships" because those pages show the notability of Brabham quite clearly. See more comments here. &bull; CQ 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE: Thanks CQ. I will consider putting a portal link on. In fact, perhaps we should do this on all the articles! If you can work your way through and come up with any further bits which make no sense to a new reader that would be great. Ta. 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FURTHER RESPONSE: Portal now linked as suggested. Ta. 4u1e 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So far, I have only read the intro and glanced at the outline. The start is good overall.


 * 1) At 30 KB, I would lean toward shortening the article. RESPONSE: Absolutely - I've still got quite a lot of redrafting to cut it down. There's still a bit of duplication where I've moved things around. Thanks for confirming my views! 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Does constructor mean anything other than essentially "who builds the cars"? I am unfamiliar with the word, and the link takes me to a list instead of an explanation. RESPONSE: Constructor is actually quite a complicated concept. I won't bore you with it here, but I'll see if there's something better to link to that goes into the murky details. 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I have no idea what "fan-car" is. Maurreen 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) RESPONSE: That's meant to intrigue you and draw you further into the article, where it is covered! It's been wikilinked to the full article since your comment, but that rather short circuits the need to explain it at all later on in the article, because the linked article, naturally, gives more detail than is needed here. I may remove the wikilink in the lead and give a slightly bigger hint as to why it is interesting, and a (see below) to drive the point home. 4u1e 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) FURTHER RESPONSE: Done. Although I left out the (see below) as being a hint too far 4u1e 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. A couple more thoughts on the intro: I would move up the 1966 championship to maybe the second sentence. It seems to be the most notable fact, so it should have a lot of prominence. Also, in probably the first sentence, I would indicate the team's duration. Maurreen 04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, more or less. I couldn't see a way of squeezing more info into the first sentence, but the information is present in the order you suggest. I suspect I can do more to make it less opaque for non fans. 4u1e 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is better. Maurreen 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)