The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [1].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It has undergone a PR here, where members of WP:F1 ensured that the article was comprehensive. It has been copyedited by about six editors, not including myself, and passed its GAN yesterday. So, I put this amazing Formula One race before FAC. I'm here to answer any questions or make any adjustments. Aptery gial 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - One of the intriguing things about being an FAC reviewer is discovering the wide range of articles that come here, including many on topics that I've never heard of. Even more intriguing for me is finding a page on a sports event from my time, and this fits in that category. I watched most of the race live in the US, including the dramatic final laps (thank you, Speed channel). Keeping in mind that I'm familiar with the topic, and that I already have many active reviews (which limits the time I can spend with any one review), here are my opening thoughts:
I read partway through Practice and qualifying, and will return to review the rest at a later time. What I'm seeing so far looks good, and I'm impressed by the quality of the sources used; I don't see any questionable ones in there. Best of luck.
Giants2008 (
17-14) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
(undent)I left one note above, but other than that I'm ready to support. Surprising that this reached such a high level of quality so soon after the event. Nice work. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor comment In the final para of the race section it says "Rain began to fall heavily on lap 69, as Hamilton ran wide, which allowed Vettel to take fifth position." I can't quite remember now, but you would expect that Hamilton ran wide after the rain intensified: can we nail down the relative timing? Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Support - Looks good to me, though it gets a bit quote-heavy towards the ends, do we really need to know so obviously what every F1 website said or could it be put into prose and appropiatly cited (Though I accept there are peacock risks here). A few of the sentences can be a bit convoluted, for example 'Timo Glock remained certain the decision to stay on dry-weather tyres when other teams were pitting for wet-weather tyres was a correct one' could do with...something, commas or what have you, to make it more readable (Especially as it is just a tie in for a quote). All in all though, it is a solid article. There is the temptation to do too much of a bridge from this article to the 2009 season, and I think the article does well to avoid it. PS: Is 'Part 1, Part 2, Part 3' the standard in F1 articles these days for qualifying? Looks kind of hideous and clumsy. But if it is a standard keep it, very minor nitpick from me) --
Narson ~
Talk • 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Very minor thing that I just thought of, in the Background section it says "McLaren were second on 145 points". Technically, the entry competing for the WCC is "McLaren Mercedes". If McLaren had run a different make of engine in the car, it would be classed as a different constructor.
AlexJ (
talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Support: Informative and well written. It captures the background, the event itself and outcome of the race well. Works for me. Chasingsol ( talk) 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Image review All images have verifiable licenses and descriptions. I would ask the editors to add a source for
File:Circuit Interlagos.svg. Since Wikipedia cannot rely on its editors' reliability for legitimacy, particularly in the area of self-made content, it is always best to include a source that users can check the diagram against.
Awadewit (
talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [1].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It has undergone a PR here, where members of WP:F1 ensured that the article was comprehensive. It has been copyedited by about six editors, not including myself, and passed its GAN yesterday. So, I put this amazing Formula One race before FAC. I'm here to answer any questions or make any adjustments. Aptery gial 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - One of the intriguing things about being an FAC reviewer is discovering the wide range of articles that come here, including many on topics that I've never heard of. Even more intriguing for me is finding a page on a sports event from my time, and this fits in that category. I watched most of the race live in the US, including the dramatic final laps (thank you, Speed channel). Keeping in mind that I'm familiar with the topic, and that I already have many active reviews (which limits the time I can spend with any one review), here are my opening thoughts:
I read partway through Practice and qualifying, and will return to review the rest at a later time. What I'm seeing so far looks good, and I'm impressed by the quality of the sources used; I don't see any questionable ones in there. Best of luck.
Giants2008 (
17-14) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
(undent)I left one note above, but other than that I'm ready to support. Surprising that this reached such a high level of quality so soon after the event. Nice work. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Minor comment In the final para of the race section it says "Rain began to fall heavily on lap 69, as Hamilton ran wide, which allowed Vettel to take fifth position." I can't quite remember now, but you would expect that Hamilton ran wide after the rain intensified: can we nail down the relative timing? Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Support - Looks good to me, though it gets a bit quote-heavy towards the ends, do we really need to know so obviously what every F1 website said or could it be put into prose and appropiatly cited (Though I accept there are peacock risks here). A few of the sentences can be a bit convoluted, for example 'Timo Glock remained certain the decision to stay on dry-weather tyres when other teams were pitting for wet-weather tyres was a correct one' could do with...something, commas or what have you, to make it more readable (Especially as it is just a tie in for a quote). All in all though, it is a solid article. There is the temptation to do too much of a bridge from this article to the 2009 season, and I think the article does well to avoid it. PS: Is 'Part 1, Part 2, Part 3' the standard in F1 articles these days for qualifying? Looks kind of hideous and clumsy. But if it is a standard keep it, very minor nitpick from me) --
Narson ~
Talk • 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Very minor thing that I just thought of, in the Background section it says "McLaren were second on 145 points". Technically, the entry competing for the WCC is "McLaren Mercedes". If McLaren had run a different make of engine in the car, it would be classed as a different constructor.
AlexJ (
talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Support: Informative and well written. It captures the background, the event itself and outcome of the race well. Works for me. Chasingsol ( talk) 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Image review All images have verifiable licenses and descriptions. I would ask the editors to add a source for
File:Circuit Interlagos.svg. Since Wikipedia cannot rely on its editors' reliability for legitimacy, particularly in the area of self-made content, it is always best to include a source that users can check the diagram against.
Awadewit (
talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
reply