This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If you're still looking for a photo of the #1 Benetton, then one is now available here.-- Diniz (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've attempted to summarise the outstanding issues, from the discussion of the FAC nomination. Once these seem to be addressed, hopefully I can try and get the article to FA status.
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Concern over reliability of ChicaneF1.com | Done - References changed |
Concern over reliability of GPRacing192.com | Done - References changed |
Concern over reliability of GaleForceF1.com | Look below.... |
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Good photograph needed with proper rationale |
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Criterion 1a concern - copy-edit needed |
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Criterion 1a concern - copy-edit needed |
From this, it seems that the article could become FA, but there are three major concerns:
D.M.N. ( talk) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Gale Force F1 website, I believe, satisfies WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, along with WP:RS for a few reasons. The Gale Force website is linked from Autosport's/Atlas F1's reports, see here, with a comment saying it is "the fastest Formula 1 results service on the Internet". On Gale Force F1's history page, see here, it states that it has hosted in the past, the Atlas F1/Autosport website, as well as hosting the Pacific Racing F1 team site. As it hosted a reliable website, surely that doesn't make Gale Force reliable? Also, the Atlas F1 website has an About Us page, with a list of credentials an well as compliments from others inside Formula One. D.M.N. ( talk) 12:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to jump in and copy edit, already have a question. I notice sentences like "Drive x was on 50 points". Why is the term "on" being used? Should't it be that they "had" 50 points, or they were "at" 50 points? I don't understand "on". Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I checked on the "were" vs. "was" thing with SandyGeorgia, and it looks fine here. Definitely has to do with USA vs. Europe. The key is to be consistent in this article and other F1 articles, where it looks like for the most part "were" is being used. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ref 24 (ChicaneF1 Qualifying ref) I think should be removed. The reference is only used to back up the gaps between each of the cars from qualifying. I acutally worked out the gaps using calculator, and just used the ChicaneF1 ref to back it up. I personally don't think it is needed, and I think it should go. Thoughts? D.M.N. ( talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've continued with some copyediting. I removed two sentences that seemed to explain technical info regarding tyres but weren't particularly relevent to this article. One thing I noticed, in regards to how the unfamiliar with F1 would read, are expressions like "converted" places. Not sure how to copy edit that, just a note. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, there should probably be total consistency between "pitting" and "made a pitstop". It switches back and forth, although in general I'd say the mention of so many pitstops might be too much anyways. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 15:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to provide some comments on the article ( this version)...
These are all my opinion and are based on the fact I haven't read through any failed FACs etc. Feel free to disregard. Hope they're of use. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to contrast the fortunes of Williams and McLaren in the lead? We now have a reference for the race being Hill's personal low point of 1995, and as both he and Coulthard retired due to unforced errors and Williams lost the Constructors' Championship, the acute disappointment for the team can be mentioned in the lead. In contrast, McLaren had their most competitive race of the year, as Häkkinen did not have to rely on so many rivals dropping out to finish second (as happened at Monza), and was close to the leaders' pace all weekend. If the lead needs to be expanded further, then I think this would make a suitable addition to it.-- Diniz (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If a hard-copy reference source is preferable, then AUTOCOURSE has a lap chart which provides the same information on page 222.-- Diniz (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of great improvements have been made over the past few weeks, I believe addressing most of the copy editing concerns. The one thing I am unsure of is still how the "blow-by-blow" of the race will read to those unfamiliar with racing. I've become quite comfortable with it now and think it reads fluently and logically, although I remember when I first read it I found it confusing. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 13:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If you're still looking for a photo of the #1 Benetton, then one is now available here.-- Diniz (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've attempted to summarise the outstanding issues, from the discussion of the FAC nomination. Once these seem to be addressed, hopefully I can try and get the article to FA status.
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Concern over reliability of ChicaneF1.com | Done - References changed |
Concern over reliability of GPRacing192.com | Done - References changed |
Concern over reliability of GaleForceF1.com | Look below.... |
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Good photograph needed with proper rationale |
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Criterion 1a concern - copy-edit needed |
Item | Current state |
---|---|
Criterion 1a concern - copy-edit needed |
From this, it seems that the article could become FA, but there are three major concerns:
D.M.N. ( talk) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Gale Force F1 website, I believe, satisfies WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, along with WP:RS for a few reasons. The Gale Force website is linked from Autosport's/Atlas F1's reports, see here, with a comment saying it is "the fastest Formula 1 results service on the Internet". On Gale Force F1's history page, see here, it states that it has hosted in the past, the Atlas F1/Autosport website, as well as hosting the Pacific Racing F1 team site. As it hosted a reliable website, surely that doesn't make Gale Force reliable? Also, the Atlas F1 website has an About Us page, with a list of credentials an well as compliments from others inside Formula One. D.M.N. ( talk) 12:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to jump in and copy edit, already have a question. I notice sentences like "Drive x was on 50 points". Why is the term "on" being used? Should't it be that they "had" 50 points, or they were "at" 50 points? I don't understand "on". Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I checked on the "were" vs. "was" thing with SandyGeorgia, and it looks fine here. Definitely has to do with USA vs. Europe. The key is to be consistent in this article and other F1 articles, where it looks like for the most part "were" is being used. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ref 24 (ChicaneF1 Qualifying ref) I think should be removed. The reference is only used to back up the gaps between each of the cars from qualifying. I acutally worked out the gaps using calculator, and just used the ChicaneF1 ref to back it up. I personally don't think it is needed, and I think it should go. Thoughts? D.M.N. ( talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've continued with some copyediting. I removed two sentences that seemed to explain technical info regarding tyres but weren't particularly relevent to this article. One thing I noticed, in regards to how the unfamiliar with F1 would read, are expressions like "converted" places. Not sure how to copy edit that, just a note. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, there should probably be total consistency between "pitting" and "made a pitstop". It switches back and forth, although in general I'd say the mention of so many pitstops might be too much anyways. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 15:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to provide some comments on the article ( this version)...
These are all my opinion and are based on the fact I haven't read through any failed FACs etc. Feel free to disregard. Hope they're of use. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to contrast the fortunes of Williams and McLaren in the lead? We now have a reference for the race being Hill's personal low point of 1995, and as both he and Coulthard retired due to unforced errors and Williams lost the Constructors' Championship, the acute disappointment for the team can be mentioned in the lead. In contrast, McLaren had their most competitive race of the year, as Häkkinen did not have to rely on so many rivals dropping out to finish second (as happened at Monza), and was close to the leaders' pace all weekend. If the lead needs to be expanded further, then I think this would make a suitable addition to it.-- Diniz (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If a hard-copy reference source is preferable, then AUTOCOURSE has a lap chart which provides the same information on page 222.-- Diniz (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of great improvements have been made over the past few weeks, I believe addressing most of the copy editing concerns. The one thing I am unsure of is still how the "blow-by-blow" of the race will read to those unfamiliar with racing. I've become quite comfortable with it now and think it reads fluently and logically, although I remember when I first read it I found it confusing. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 13:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)