Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wrote the bulk of this article some two and half years ago, and gave it a second push just over a year ago. I've had another read through it recently, and I'm a bit stuck on how to proceed, although I think it would make a nice featured article.
To me, I feel there's still a little something lacking in terms of content. I think the post-race section is probably the weakest part, so any suggestions on relevant information to go here would be especially appreciated. Even if you could just say "I'd like to know more about x" then I can do some research and flesh out that part a little.
Of course, all and any comments on prose quality, clarity/wording, things that you feel are missing, lack of (quality) citations or anything else that would improve the article (no matter how small) would be great. Thanks, AlexJ ( talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, first of all, it's nice to see an F1 race report not from the 1995 or 2008 seasons going through a peer review! ;)
The article looks good so far, but I think it has quite a long way to go to reach FA, or even GA standard.
I hope these suggestions are useful for you!-- Midgrid (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This page may not be the place to address it, but one thing puzzles me: how does FISA impose a fine for drivers not doing something that isn't required in the rules? How does FIA fine drivers for legal racing? Or is there somewhere that explains? If so, I'd suggest linking it in. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Midgrid summed it up pretty well there, more inline citations are required, especially for the race section as it is the focus of the article. Some fleshing out of each section, where possible of course, together with more references is the chief concern of this article. One thing I noticed was in the Background section. You have got these lines The Spanish Grand Prix was originally scheduled to be the seventh round of the 1980 World Championship. Disputes between motorsports' governing body, the FISA, and the body representing the chassis builders (constructors) competing in the championship, the FOCA. and apart from being grammatically incorrect, there is no explanation of the FISA-FOCA dispute. A bit more background information of the events leading up to the race, as they did directly affect it, would certainly help the reader understand why there was an argument to begin with.
Some images would also be good to have. I know it may be rather hard to find any free to use pictures of the race itself, but some images of the drivers or cars involved would do.
Also, I took the time to link teams through the article.
Hope I helped! QueenCake ( talk) 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Midgrid essentially summarised the key points here as far as I can see it. A few things:
Prose is awkward in places, although I appreciate this remains a work in progress. I can review again or copyedit when you feel you're closer to FAC. Apterygial talk 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wrote the bulk of this article some two and half years ago, and gave it a second push just over a year ago. I've had another read through it recently, and I'm a bit stuck on how to proceed, although I think it would make a nice featured article.
To me, I feel there's still a little something lacking in terms of content. I think the post-race section is probably the weakest part, so any suggestions on relevant information to go here would be especially appreciated. Even if you could just say "I'd like to know more about x" then I can do some research and flesh out that part a little.
Of course, all and any comments on prose quality, clarity/wording, things that you feel are missing, lack of (quality) citations or anything else that would improve the article (no matter how small) would be great. Thanks, AlexJ ( talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, first of all, it's nice to see an F1 race report not from the 1995 or 2008 seasons going through a peer review! ;)
The article looks good so far, but I think it has quite a long way to go to reach FA, or even GA standard.
I hope these suggestions are useful for you!-- Midgrid (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This page may not be the place to address it, but one thing puzzles me: how does FISA impose a fine for drivers not doing something that isn't required in the rules? How does FIA fine drivers for legal racing? Or is there somewhere that explains? If so, I'd suggest linking it in. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Midgrid summed it up pretty well there, more inline citations are required, especially for the race section as it is the focus of the article. Some fleshing out of each section, where possible of course, together with more references is the chief concern of this article. One thing I noticed was in the Background section. You have got these lines The Spanish Grand Prix was originally scheduled to be the seventh round of the 1980 World Championship. Disputes between motorsports' governing body, the FISA, and the body representing the chassis builders (constructors) competing in the championship, the FOCA. and apart from being grammatically incorrect, there is no explanation of the FISA-FOCA dispute. A bit more background information of the events leading up to the race, as they did directly affect it, would certainly help the reader understand why there was an argument to begin with.
Some images would also be good to have. I know it may be rather hard to find any free to use pictures of the race itself, but some images of the drivers or cars involved would do.
Also, I took the time to link teams through the article.
Hope I helped! QueenCake ( talk) 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Midgrid essentially summarised the key points here as far as I can see it. A few things:
Prose is awkward in places, although I appreciate this remains a work in progress. I can review again or copyedit when you feel you're closer to FAC. Apterygial talk 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)