Talk:1982 Formula One World Championship

Corrections to Belgium & Holland

I've edited the description of the fatal crash of Gilles Villeneuve. Rosberg was not involved in the crash. The driver involved was Jochen Mass with his March-Ford. Corrected the data about the Holland GP. Pironi took the lead of the race after fourteen laps. I think you'll see if you look back Arnoux's accident in Holland was in fact caused by a suspension failure. One of his front wheels ripped loose as he headed towards Tarzan corner. Ceres3 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

comments from IP 186.136.89.17 moved from article.

THIS IS NOT TRUE: 1) The Argentina landing on the Malvinas/Falklands Islands were on April 2. Hardly to undersand how the cancellation reason was for an event that took place a month after the planned race. 2) Argentina was not sanctionned for any sporting involvemente. As as matter of fact, Argentina was participating in the Soccer World Cup (and was still the reigning Soccer Champion) in June 1982 as the war was still been fought. 3) It was not an invasion. Argentina took back the islands that were invaded by the UK in 1833.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.89.17 (talk • contribs)

It certainly was an invasion, the UK had claim to the islands before Argentina even existed so you can't take back something you never had. In any event, practically everywhere in the world was once owned by someone else so previous ownership hardly justifies a certain claim. The only certainties are that the UK were the current sovereign in 1982 and that at that point and until this day, the current population overwhelmingly want to stay alligned to the UK. Your points 1 and 2 seem valid though. Rcclh (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Brabham points total in the Constructors Championship.

Anyway i actually came here to discuss Brabham's points total. It seems to have been split between points scored with the BMW engine and points scored with the Cosworth engine. Surely this is just one team using different engines in different races and the points should be aggregated? Rcclh (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually no. In the Constructors' Championship, each chassis-engine combination is counted separately - see http://www.formula1.com/results/team/1982/. DH85868993 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that looks like an official site so I guess it stays as it is, although they do make mistakes sometimes. Seems strange to me for a "constructors" championship to split the constructors' points up. Has there ever been discussion involving the FIA before regarding this? Rcclh (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The practice goes back decades back when race teams manufactured customer cars for many teams other than heir own. Various teams running Cooper chassis may have BRM engines, or Coventry Climax or Ferrari, or Maserati. The concept pre-dates the current practice where ther are no longer any customer chassis. --Falcadore (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why has Brabham's BMW and Ford pointscores been combined? --Falcadore (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the 1982 Manufacturers' Championship table in the 1983 FIA Yearbook lists "Brabham" with a total of 41 points. Of course this conflicts with various other sources such as formula1.com and Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Vol 4, which list Brabham-BMW and Brabham-Ford separately, with 22 and 19 points respectively. But in theory the FIA Yearbook is/should be the "official" source, so it's a bit of a quandary. The editor who made the change (User:GTHO) may be able to provide further information. DH85868993 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1982 Formula One World Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 03:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review Comments

Sections that I have read so far with a tick meaning that I have read that section.
1 Y, 2 Y, 3 Y, 4 Y

@Matt294069: Just a quick question: Are the symbols placeholders so far? Or are you going to fill in what should be changed later? Anyway, I am very happy that someone is finally reviewing this :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(watching) @Zwerg Nase: Not so much placeholders: the green means, effectively, that they've been looked at and passed, while the grey means they haven't been / are in the process of being looked at. Good luck wit this, cool article. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Alright, thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that is basically what everything means, and the red means their is a error and needs to be fixed. Animation is developing 13:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Some issues that I see here while reading at this time,

- The line: "Rosberg's championship in the Williams FW08 was the last title for a naturally aspirated car until turbocharged engineswere banned for 1989." - This needs a reference as it seems to be original research here.

I've actually removed the sentence alltogether. I cannot really find a source for it, even though I know it is factual. But it is also pretty trivial.

- "Rosberg won only one race during the season" - Maybe say which race that it came from and the following sentences again properly need a reference there.

I've added which race. A source is not needed in this case, since it is given in the article body, per WP:LEAD.

- "FOCA consisted of the major British teams" - Which teams was major at the time?

I've changed this a little bit to give more context and wikilinked.

- "However, as events during the 1982 season would prove, the conflict was not entirely resolved." - Is this line really needed here because it doesn't seem to be needed.

 Done

- "Additionally, the cornering speed and the resulting high g-forces put pressure on both the drivers and the cars' suspensions" - Missing a comma after g-forces.

Are you sure? English comma rules always confuse me, but I would argue that I should not disrupt subject and verb of the sentence by a comma?

- "Over the next seasons, the turbo engines proved fast, yet unreliable." - Maybe add "few" or something along the lines before the word seasons of that as it doesn't flow.

 Done

- "the mainly British constructor teams were still at a significant power disadvantage compared to the turbocharged engines" - Maybe remove the word mainly in this part of the sentence.

Well, not all FOCA teams were British, but most of them, so content wise, this would not make sense. I've simply changed it to differently, trying to make it more clear.

- "Alain Prost set the fastest time during testing, at 1:05.71 minutes," - Remove minutes in this sentence.

 Done

- In the pre-season section, you could try and expand that bit of the article as it didn't felt like a full summary of the pre-season.

Difficult. For one, there is not much more to say here. Also, many F1 editors feel that not too much significance should be given to the pre-season.

- "Lauda did just one run of a few laps" - How many laps does that mean by few.

I actually don't know how many exactly, my sources don't say. What this means to say is that he did not put as much effort into qualifying as he could have done, allowing De Cesaris to leapfrog him. I am not sure how I can rephrase it to make it clearer.

- "Nigel Roebuck writes that the next race, the Monaco Grand Prix," - This is meant to be past tense in the word write so it would be Nigel Roebuck wrote that the next race...

I've rephrased this, also added an explanation about who Roebuck is.

- With the French and German Grand Prix, you could split those two into separate paragraphs.

 Done Also did the same for Austria, Dijon, and Monza.

- "At the following event, the German Grand Prix at Hockenheim, he qualified on pole position." - Who qualified on pole position?

 Done

- "He overtook Arnoux on lap 73 of 80 and Prost on lap 78, taking the lead in the championship in the process." - possibly drop "in the process" from this sentence.

I've rephrased this.

- This is just a general thought, but you could use the website (http://www.grandprix.com) to link some online pages to the wiki as some people (me included) might not have these books in their possession. By all means use those to help out but for people who doesn't have those books.

I went with a mixture of Motor Sport magazine archive links and grandprix.com, since I prefer the former, when they're available.

Animation is developing 09:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Matt294069: Thanks for your comments, I'll try to adress them as soon as possible! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That is good to hear as this is so close to getting a GA status and I think with those little fix ups, I think it will be GA. Animation is developing 12:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I have addressed all points raised, please see above :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have seen these and yeah I have to agree on the comma thing as at the time it didn't sound right. But other than a little mishap, I think this has now got GA status. @Zwerg Nase: Animation is developing 23:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Matt294069: Thank you very much! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.