Talk:2008 Bahrain Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Additional comments are always welcome. This article looks simply fantastic, so I'm predicting the review will not take that long, although I will take a day or so to go through it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Checklist

Assess	Criteria
	1. well written
x	(a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
x	(b) complies with Manual of Style:
x	lead
x	layout
x	jargon
x	words to avoid
n/a	fiction
x	list incorporation
	2. factually accurate and verifiable
x	(a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
x	(b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
x	(c) no original research
	3. broad in coverage
x	(a) addresses main aspects of topic
x	(b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
	4. neutral
	5. stable (no edit wars)
	6. images
x	(a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
x	(b) relevant to topic with suitable captions

Well written

• Four instances of "Ferraris" without the apostrophe. Is this a convention for this article? Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it would need an apostrophe, as it is plural, not possessive. Could you clarify? Apterygial 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You are correct; nothing to clarify. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Question about the sourcing used for the second paragraph in "Practice and qualifying". See "References" section at the bottom. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Images checked for copyright status, fair use rationale, relevance and captions. No problems to report, but the captions for the portraits are somewhat minimal, but that might fit the topic or work in this instance. Personally, I would prefer more in the caption, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary. :) Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Normally I include more in the captions, but I had a shot with less this time. It was really because I'm using the portraits to complement the text, rather than using them as a semi-substitute, like in 2008 Chinese Grand Prix. I can expand them if you like, as I can see where you are coming from. Apterygial 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly, and the minimalist approach works here. I think you nailed it, but it takes some getting used to, especially when I'm coming from other articles where the captions are longer. But, I like what you have done; You have a good sense of aesthetics and that's something one doesn't see very often here. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

By section

Lead

• The 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix (formally the V Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix) was a Formula One motor race held on April 6, 2008 at the Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir, Bahrain.
  • Can you tell me what the name change is all about? Does this mean Gulf Air stopped sponsoring the race for 2008? Also should this say that Bahrain International Circuit is in Sakhir, Bahrain, rather than skipping the preposition? I'm just curious... Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your first point. You could be getting confused by the Roman numeral aspect of it, in this case it means it is the fifth Bahrain GP. I don't think the second point marks a change in meaning, but I've added an "in" anyway. Apterygial 08:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Let me try again: Does Gulf Air still sponsor the race? When you say it was known formerly as X, it makes it seem like they lost their sponsorship. Obviously, that does not appear to be the case, so it might be helpful to discuss the name change on its own. In other words, when you lead-in with "formerly" that implies a name change and other things along with it. When I read that I think, "Oh, they lost their sponsorship", but that is obviously not what you intended. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Note the sentence says "formally", not "formerly". Apterygial 09:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
          • So it does.  :) Thanks for clearing that up. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Apterygial, after having some time to think about why I misconstrued "formally" with "formerly" (which resulted in my malapropism) I think I have an answer. Beyond the obvious need to get my eyes checked (!), I'm not used to seeing "formally" used in this context. Don't get me wrong, you've used it correctly and it makes sense, but from what I recall, I'm used to seeing "full name" used like this, not "formally". Perhaps you might consider changing it, or not. It doesn't really matter all that much, but I'm curious why you decided to use "formally" in the first place. Is it a project convention? Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is widely used amongst F1 FAs and GAs, and is a bit of a convention. I think it must be a lot more common in the UK than the US (WP:F1 uses UK spelling and grammar but US dates, go figure). I would prefer, as it is project convention, to keep it, but I can see why it tripped you up. Apterygial 09:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not asking you to do anything you don't want to do. But, I am asking you to think about the convention. For example, wouldn't it be easier to use "formal name" to avoid any ambiguity? And, can you show me other articles outside of your project that use "formally"? Basically, I'm pleading ignornace on this, as I've never seen it used before. "Full name" I see all the time, so "formal name" would make just as much sense. But, please, don't change anything. Just think about it. That's all I'm saying. If the usage is unique to your project, that might tell you something. If not, then I am willing to learn something new. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This might interest you (sorry for handing you such a messy page). "Full name" is, sorry to say this, :) a real Americanism, and "Formal name" in this sentence structure, would again be counter project rules. You are welcome to try at WT:F1, but the page is insane (they spent 5000 words arguing about which flag to use for the European Grand Prix!) Apterygial 13:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• It was the third race of the 2008 Formula One season.
  • What about using this instead: "The Grand Prix was the third race of the 2008 Formula One season." Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems a little repetitive, I think the pronoun suffices. Apterygial 08:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It may be repetitive to you, as you helped write it and you know the topic. But well-placed redundancy helps the average reader along. It's a form of hand-holding. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article intended for a general audience, not for racing fans; Try to read it with beginner's mind. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I appreciate that, but this isn't really a jargon issue, the subject is clear from the first sentence, and I don't think there ambiguity here. Apterygial 09:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• The race, contested over 57 laps, was won by Felipe Massa for the Ferrari team. Kimi Räikkönen was second in the other Ferrari, and BMW Sauber driver Robert Kubica was third.
  • What about this instead: "The race was contested for over 57 laps, with the Ferrari team taking the two top spots, as Felipe Massa captured first place and Kimi Räikkönen second, and BMW Sauber driver Robert Kubica placing third." Or something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to stress that Massa won the GP, as the win is very important in F1. Due respect is given to Ferrari's one-two finish in the next paragraph. I've also got a vendetta of sorts against the "..., with ...ing" structure, which is why I avoided it. Apterygial 09:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Right, I see that now. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Kubica began the race from pole position alongside Massa. Lewis Hamilton, the eventual Drivers' Champion, started from third, alongside Räikkönen. Kubica was passed by Massa into the first corner, and then by Räikkönen on the third lap.
  • Try something like this: "The race began with Kubica in pole position alongside Massa, with Lewis Hamilton, the eventual Drivers' Champion, starting in third. Massa passed Kubica into the first corner, with Räikkönen passing Massa on the third lap." Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've used "The race began with Kubica in pole position alongside Massa; Lewis Hamilton, the eventual Drivers' Champion, started from third, alongside Räikkönen. Kubica was passed by Massa into the first corner, and then by Räikkönen on the third lap." Apterygial 09:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Ferraris then dominated at the front of the race, leading to their one-two finish.
  • Don't need "then" here: "The Ferraris dominated at the front of the race, leading to their one-two finish." Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 09:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• The result promoted BMW Sauber to the lead in the Constructors' Championship, after BMW driver Nick Heidfeld finished fourth.
  • Remember, you are writing for a general audience, so be specific. I don't know what "the result" means. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Kubica's strong finish promoted BMW Sauber to the lead in the Constructors' Championship, after BMW driver Nick Heidfeld finished fourth." Apterygial 09:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • That's fantastic! :) Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• See question about apostrophe usage in the "Well written" section above. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Report

Background

• The teams, also known as "constructors", were Ferrari, McLaren–Mercedes, Renault, Honda, Force India, BMW Sauber, Toyota, Red Bull Racing, Williams, Toro Rosso and Super Aguri.
  • Using a lead-in with a complete sentence and a colon might help. "22 drivers competed in 11 teams (or "constructors") of two in the Grand Prix: Ferrari, McLaren–Mercedes, Renault, Honda, Force India, BMW Sauber, Toyota, Red Bull Racing, Williams, Toro Rosso and Super Aguri." Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I would prefer in this case to keep the two separate sentences for the sake of clarity; I got lost in your proposed sentence, before the colon it seems convoluted. Apterygial 10:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Just an example. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmm. I still think it works better as two sentences rather than any single sentence I can think of. Apterygial 10:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• As is normal for a Formula One race, Bridgestone brought two different tyre compounds to the race; the softer of the two marked by a single white stripe down one of the grooves.
  • Is it important to tell the reader that this is normal? Wouldn't it be better to only point this out if it was abnormal? It sounds better to just say: "Bridgestone brought two different tyre compounds to the Formula One race; the softer of the two marked by a single white stripe down one of the grooves." If it is normal, then there is no need to highlight it, right? Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point. I've removed the offending word. :) Apterygial 10:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Prior to the race, McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton led the Drivers' Championship with 14 points, and Ferrari driver Kimi Räikkönen was second with 11 points.
  • Why not use "placed" instead of "was"? Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • To me "placed" carries an element of finality, it seems to be something you say at the end of a race or season. "Was" is a nice neutral word, so seemed the better word top use. Apterygial 10:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Behind them in the Drivers' Championship, Nick Heidfeld was third, also with 11 points, in a BMW Sauber, and Hamilton's McLaren teammate Heikki Kovalainen was fourth with 10 points.
  • "Coming behind Hamilton and Räikkönen in the Drivers' Championship, BMW Sauber's Nick Heidfeld drove into third place with 11 points, while Hamilton's McLaren teammate Heikki Kovalainen placed fourth with 10 points." Again, just an example. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no problems with the original sentence, what are your objections about it? Apterygial 10:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Same as above in lead with "it". I tend to favor redundancy for the purposes of flow. Not a big deal. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
        • So you want me to say something like "Behind Hamilton and Räikkönen in the Drivers' Championship,"? Apterygial 10:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I've done it anyway. Apterygial 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ferrari had dominated the previous round in Malaysia"
  • Can we remove "had"? Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • We most certainly can. Apterygial 10:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ferrari had dominated the previous round in Malaysia, where Felipe Massa had claimed pole position, and led from his teammate Räikkönen through the opening stages of the race, before spinning off and retiring midway through.
  • "...and led from his teammate Räikkönen through the opening stages of the race..." What does that mean? Can you rephrase "led from his teammate"? Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed to "...and led his teammate Räikkönen in second place through the opening stages of the race, before spinning off and retiring midway through." Apterygial 10:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Very nice! :) Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Räikkönen went on to win the race, and expressed his optimism about Bahrain: "I have finished third in three successive Grands Prix in Bahrain. Time and again something has gone wrong. Sakhir is one of those circuits where I really want to win. Finally."
  • A paragraph break after this quote would help. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 10:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Massa had come under fire from the press for two errors in the opening two races which had left him without points
  • How about: "In the opening two races, Massa came under fire from the press for two errors that left him without points:" Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Coolio. Changed. Apterygial 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hamilton had won the opening race in Australia, but after a qualifying penalty and a botched pit stop in Malaysia had managed only fifth.[6] Kubica had begun his season well, qualifying second in Australia and finishing second in Malaysia, and the Polish driver said his team could maintain their momentum into the third race: "I'm confident that we can be very competitive here as well."
  • Can we try something along the lines of: "Hamilton won the opening race in Australia, but managed to finish only fifth after a qualifying penalty and a botched pit stop in Malaysia. The season began well for Kubica, as he qualified second in Australia and finished second in Malaysia. Kubica predicted his team could maintain their momentum into the third race: "I'm confident that we can be very competitive here as well."
    • I might have gone too far with "predicted". Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Not at all. The whole suggestion seems perfectly reasonable, so it is now in the article. Apterygial 11:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mosley scandal
  • That paragraph is simply perfect, and I cannot imagine how it could be improved. Nice job. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you! It was a hard paragraph to write, as every word needs to be completely neutral, there is so much controversy still raging about it (just see Talk:Max Mosley). Apterygial 11:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Practice and qualifying

• On a dusty track, the Ferraris were fastest in the first session; Massa was quickest with a time of 1:32.233, ahead of Räikkönen, who had an early excursion across the sand, requiring a pit stop.
  • The dust is from the sand, right? Why not say that? It is an interesting and unique aspect of the terrain found in this venue, if I'm not mistaken. I'll leave this to you, of course, but let me just give an example below:
    • "The Ferraris outpaced the other teams in the first session on a dusty track surrounded by the sand dune desert of Sakhir. Massa's time of 1:32.233 was quicker than Räikkönen's, who was slowed down by an early excursion across the sand, requiring a pit stop." Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem with that sentence; probably worth saying. I've substituted in your suggestion. Apterygial 09:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• rounded out the top seven
  • I don't know what that means. Is it race jargon for what can only be described as the peloton? Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's jargon, it simply means that those drivers listed comprised the top seven, but as a leass clumsy way of saying it. Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hamilton lost control of his car in the second session
  • How do you feel about a paragraph break after the first session and before the second? I see that you are combining all three sessions into one paragraph, so if that's your preference, go with it. It probably looks better as one full paragraph since the second and third sessions don't have much content anyway. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I wrote it so the sessions wouldn't really matter, it's just going back down the grid. I would prefer to keep it as one paragraph; I've always thought that qualifying is only important insofar as it sets up the race. Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hamilton lost control of his car in the second session, and his McLaren slid sideways into the wall. This caused significant damage to the car, though Hamilton was unharmed. With exception of the crash, the second session was similar to the first: Massa again led Räikkönen to Ferrari one-two, ahead of Kovalainen, Hamilton and Kubica.
  • See if any of this works for you: "In the second session, Hamilton lost control of his car and slid sideways into a wall. Hamilton emerged unharmed from the collision, but his McLaren suffered significant damage. Except for the crash, the second session ended like the first: Once again, Massa led Räikkönen to Ferrari one-two, ahead of Kovalainen, Hamilton and Kubica." Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • C'est parfait! Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The third session was again held on a dusty track, where Rosberg was quickest with a time of 1:32.521. Massa took second, ahead of Red Bull driver Mark Webber, Toyota driver Jarno Trulli, David Coulthard of Red Bull, Nakajima and Kubica. Räikkönen was ninth quickest, and Hamilton 18th.
  • A few changes, but variations on a previous theme, connecting the dust in the first session. Use some of them if you like, or not: "Dust covered the track again for the third session, and Rosberg's time of 1:32.521 was the fastest. Massa took second ahead of Red Bull driver Mark Webber, Toyota driver Jarno Trulli, Red Bull driver David Coulthard, Nakajima and Kubica. Räikkönen recorded the ninth fastest time, and Hamilton the 18th." Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • "Dusty track" is an exceptionally common phrase in coverage of the Bahrain Grand Prix, so I'd like to use it here. I actually really like the rest of what I wrote there, so if it's OK I'd like to keep it. Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The first part ran for 20 minutes, and cars that finished the session 17th or lower were eliminated from qualifying.
  • Could you fill in the blanks a little bit here? Instead of just saying "cars that finished the session 17th or lower" can you help the reader out by saying "cars that finished the session in 17th position or lower"? And do you need to say "from qualifying"? Isn't it enough to just say "eliminated"? Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added the extra "position". We've run into this problem before, "eliminated" in motorsport can often mean "eliminated from the Grand Prix", as used to happen when there were more cars. The extra bit helps clear up the ambiguity. Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The second part of qualifying lasted 15 minutes
  • Same thing: "The second part of the qualifying session lasted 15 minutes" Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The final part of qualifying
  • How about "The final qualifying session" Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cars which failed to make the final session could refuel before the race, so ran lighter in those sessions. Cars which competed in the final session of qualifying were not allowed to refuel before the race, and as such carried more fuel than in the previous sessions.
  • Are you quoting the regulations here? If so, it would help if you say something like, "According to regulations". Also, why are you picking and choosing just these regs in this section? Can you explain this part to me a little bit more? Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No, we are not quoting the regs, these are all in Wikipedia words. These are the most important regs to understand, as they help explain why in the next paragraph we talk about different sessions, and why qualifying times are generally slower than practice times. It also helps with comprehension of the classification tables. Apterygial 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
      • See "References" section below. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• He was joined on the front row of the grid by Massa, who qualified less than 0.03 seconds behind the BMW.
  • "Massa qualified less than 0.03 seconds behind the BMW and joined Kubica on the front row of the grid." Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 10:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hamilton took third place using his team's spare chassis, ahead of Räikkönen, who despite being critical of his car's set-up was confident in its racing ability.
  • This is a strange sentence. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, but I'm not sure what it is trying to say. There's an allusion to Hamilton's crash with the reference to the spare chassis and then there is the bit about being critical of "his car's set-up" but I don't know if you referring to Hamilton or Räikkönen. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Should have cleared up the ambiguity. Apterygial 10:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Kovalainen would line up fifth on the grid, alongside Heidfeld, who had trouble maximising performance from his tyres.
  • "Kovalainen lined up fifth on the grid alongside Heidfeld, who had trouble maximising performance from his tyres." Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I drop the comma, but I'd like to keep the tense, as chronologically speaking we are still talking about qualifying, they line up on the grid in the next section. Apterygial 10:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Webber missed out on the top ten by 0.009 seconds and would start the race in 11th.
  • "Webber missed out on the top ten by 0.009 seconds and started the race in the 11th position." Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Same tense issue as above (though I added "position"). Apterygial 10:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Davidson's teammate Takuma Sato spun out and crashed into the barriers, damaging his rear wing and suspension, leaving him unable to continue in the session."
  • "Davidson's teammate Takuma Sato spun out and crashed into the barriers. Sato's accident damaged his rear wing and suspension and left him unable to continue in the session." Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No problems with the suggestion. Apterygial 10:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Race

• The conditions on the grid were dry for the race.
  • This is nice, and I like it, but why not say "The weather and track conditions on the grid were dry for the race." It's also a good lead-in for the next sentence that describes the weather. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think "The weather and conditions on the grid were before dry for the race." is even better. Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• with signs of a breeze which could blow sand onto the track
  • This is good, but as a reader, I want to know, what could happen if sand blows onto the track? No big deal if you can't answer this now, but it might be something to consider in the future. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Why, it would impede the cars' grip! Added. Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hamilton's poor start caused his anti-stall system to kick in, and was passed by six drivers to fall back to ninth.
  • Do you mean "and he was passed"? You wrote "and was passed".Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Räikkönen benefited from this by moving up to third, ahead of Kovalainen, Trulli and Heidfeld.
  • Räikkönen benefited from what? Hamilton's slow start? The effect of the slow start? Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Clarified. Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• By lap 10, Massa had opened his lead over Räikkönen to 4.4 seconds
  • Opened? Would "widened" work better here? Or am I too American? :) Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Why on this one? Why would you point out the one really non-American one and ask me? :) Shockingly prevalent term in UK motorsport. Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Barrichello and Fisichella finished strongly, ahead of Hamilton, who managed only 13th
  • Why the comma after strongly? Does it need it? Why not: "Barrichello and Fisichella finished strongly ahead of Hamilton, who managed only 13th place." Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Because it implies that they were strong only in comparison to Hamilton, rather than having a strong race by themselves. At least that's how I read it without the comma. Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Coulthard and Sutil finished last on track, after their respective crashes demoted them to the back of the field.
  • "Coulthard and Sutil finished last on track after crashes demoted them to the back of the field." Or: "After crashes demoted them to the back of the field, Coulthard and Sutil finished last on track." Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think "respective" is necessary here, otherwise it looks like they spent the whole time crashing into each other, instead of other people. I'll drop the comma. Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Vettel, Button and Piquet were the three retirements from the 57 lap race.
  • What does this mean? Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Would it help if I dropped "57 lap"? Apterygial 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-race

• The top three finishers appeared on the podium and in the subsequent press conference, where Massa appeared relieved:
  • "The top three finishers, X, Y, and Z, appeared on the podium and at the subsequent press conference. Massa appeared relieved:" Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't think the word "appeared" should be used twice. Perhaps, "Massa looked relieved". Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Kubica said that his poor start was due to wheelspin off the line, and the presence of oil on the track impeded the performance of his car, leading to Räikkönen's pass, "But anyway I think it was a good result: third and fourth for the team and leading the Constructors' Championship, so it was good weekend."
  • Why the comma before the quote instead of a colon? The informal rule recommends a colon after a complete sentence. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Tricky one. Here, I am using my words to describe half of his point, and his words to describe the other. Thus, as the parts are separate ideas, they are best linked with a comma rather than a colon. I think. Apterygial 13:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I read it again and still think it deserves a colon. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm certainly not passionate about it. I've put in a colon. Apterygial 10:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Renault's head of engineering Pat Symonds said his team's telemetry indicated Alonso was on full throttle down the straight"
  • "Pat Symonds, Renault's head of engineering, said his team's telemetry indicated Alonso was on full throttle down the straight" Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed. Apterygial 10:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• McLaren said
  • Who are you talking about here? I'm assuming the McLaren engineering team? Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • McLaren F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh Apterygial 10:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• However, photos indicated that the McLaren's wing could have broken even earlier than that, when Hamilton nudged a car, believed to be Alonso, on the opening lap.
  • "Photos indicate that the front wing on the McLaren could have broken even earlier when Hamilton nudged a car (believed to be Alonso) on the opening lap." Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've changed it, but I'm keeping the "however" as it contradicts the previous sentence. Apterygial 10:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Classification

Looks good. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Standings after the race

Looks good. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

References

• Some fields missing, such as author. Will try to fix as time permits. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Author information is missing where no author is given by source. I've always just left the field blank in such cases. Apterygial 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, there's something else going on here. Take a look at ref 11. It doesn't match up. It looks like you used the URL for ref 8 instead. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed I did. The proper URL is now dead, so I've substituted in a replacement. Apterygial 12:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of "Practice and qualifying" is sourced to F1 regs.[1] but is this true for the entire paragraph? Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Usually I would repeat the ref, but I thought the connection was clear enough that we could manage on one. Apterygial 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the source for the qualifying session on Saturday afternoon. It isn't in the paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll have to excuse my stupidity, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Saturday afternoon is the only time when qualifying takes place. Apterygial 10:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm talking about this material:

The qualifying session on Saturday afternoon was split into three parts. The first part ran for 20 minutes, and cars that finished the session 17th position or lower were eliminated from qualifying. The second part of the qualifying session lasted 15 minutes and eliminated cars that finished in positions 11 to 16. The final part of the qualifying session determined the positions from first to tenth, and decided pole position.

It sounds like you said it was sourced to the F1 sporting regulations link but I don't see that in the ref. Is it sourced somewhere else? If so, can you add a reference here? Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Article 33.1. I think that's what you are asking for. Apterygial 10:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I still think it needs "According to regulations", but that's just me. But, thanks for finding that passage. It almost might be helpful to add two references and specify by section as you have done above. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

• Looks good. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)