Talk:2000 San Marino Grand Prix

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Rollinginhisgrave in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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:2000 San Marino Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EnthusiastWorld37 (talk · contribs) 20:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this article. I'll note upfront that if you disagree/don't understand my comment, push back/ask. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Leaving some initial comments below.

Apologies for the delay here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

All done Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Prose and content

edit
  • Formula One World Championship, and the season's Remove the comma, per WP:CINS
  • run four laps longer than Häkkinen during his second stint. step this out so it is clearer for a lay reader, given it is the lede.
  • I would like to see it mentioned mentioned in the lede who ultimately won the 2000 Formula One World Championship to give a full context for the race, although I understand if this is not normal practice for articles of this type.
  • practiced starts for durability purposes could you explain this to me?
  • shookdown link shakedown (testing)
  • while McLaren scored no points due to their unreliable car, and driver David Coulthard was disqualified better use of conjunctions, as it appears Coulthard was on a separate team to McLaren.
  • possible world championship victory,[21] but Ferrari improvements different conjunction, inappropriate SYNTH, implications for Schumacher celebrating a possible world championship victory
  • admitted WP:SAID
  • with a concentration on active voice for concision

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • BAR car failed due to a fuel leak caused by a failed fuel pipeline, dropping oil over the track
  • with a low chance of rain don't need to mention this unless the weather changes through the day.
  • mechanicsm sp
  • pushed too hard can you be more clear on this
  • he had to slow for yellow flags why was this?
  • the fastest driver to miss the top ten due to -> after too much detail
  • and costing him time rmv
  • For the last 15 minutes,[49] Button selected the medium compound tyres but being unacquainted with the track following hydraulic issues earlier in the day and him forcing himself to mount the kerbs left him in 18th. does this sentence make sense?
  • in the hopes of improving race performance rmv
  • Massimo Trebbi you don't have to mention the mechanic's name.
  • but was moved into the pit lane was tense
  • and his immediate reaction was to aggressively prevent Coulthard wordy, use active voice
  • Barrichello appeared hesitant to overtake his teammate Michael Schumacher attribute
  • the former to just use surnames as this gets a bit confusing
  • while Ralf Schumacher lost momentum... falling from fifth to ninth break up sentence, too long
  • in a battle for third less colloquial
  • were battling for ^
  • .[3][77]As space
  • factors., adding
  • but called it better conjunction

Suggestions

edit
  • Consider linking tifosi

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
  • I notice www.formula1.com seems to have undergone a change in ownership. Can you tell me why this is considered RS?
  • [7]  Y
  • [14]  Y
  • [21]  Y
  • [28]  clock I might be missing it, but I can't really figure out what info you're citing here, and there's a lot of text. Might be best if you can point it out.
  • [35]  Y
  • [42]  Y
  • [49a]  Y
  • [56]  Y
  • [70]  Y
  • [80]  Y

Other

edit
  • Neutral  Y
  • No COPYVIO/OR  Y 74.2% earwig, all quotes
  • Broad / summary style  Y
  • Stable  Y
  • Images: appropriately tagged PD, CC  Y

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.