Talk:2015 Canadian Grand Prix

Lap chart

Could someone (Cs-wolves, GyaroMaguus?) check if the lap chart is correct? I am not entirely sure... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't correct, firstly you had Rosberg's lead laps wrong, and you hadn't correctly put in when the drivers lead on the bar bit. It is completely fixed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Canadian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this in the next couple of days. Relentlessly (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

OK, there's quite a lot of small stuff here, but nothing that should be too difficult.

Prose issues:

• "Coming from the previous race in Monaco, the pit-stop decision that seemingly cost Lewis Hamilton a victory was still a talking point when the paddock arrived in Canada." A dangling modifier there: you probably mean "The pit-stop decision that seemingly cost Lewis Hamilton a victory in the previous race in Monaco was still a talking point..."

 Done

• "For causing a collision with Romain Grosjean in Monaco, Max Verstappen received a five-place grid penalty for the Canadian Grand Prix." These clauses would be easier to read the other way round.

 Done

• "turn 14" There are only 13 turns in the map at the top of the page.

Huh, this is a brain scratcher. Turns out all the track maps on commons are wrong, they either give 13 or 15 turns, while the official website gives 14. I will try to get one of the map makers to draw a correct one and replace it. As for now, it needs to stay as it is unfortunately...

• "Lewis Hamilton posted the fastest time, being over a second quicker than last year's time at the same session and four-tenths of a second ahead of his teammate Nico Rosberg in second." Remove the word "being", I think, and this makes better sense.

 Done

• "his car locked up" Surely his brakes locked up?

 Done

• "Events repeated themselves in second practice, as Hamilton was again quickest but was also caught out again." Not an elegant sentence! All you need to say is "Hamilton was also quickest in the second practice session, but was again involved in an incident."

 Done

• "an intermediate tyre run" – either "an intermediate-tyre run" or "a run on intermediate tyres". Probably the latter.

 Done

• "The third practice session on Saturday morning was marred by two red flag periods." That's an unnecessarily subjective description, I think "disrupted" is a better word.

 Done

• Link drag reduction system

 Done

• "a short-lived running" Overly complex phrasing: "This did not last long, however..."

 Done

• "Jenson Button had to park his car in turn seven, reporting a problem with his power unit, bringing out the red flag once again, effectively ending the session." Again, a complex sentence structure. How about "Jenson Button had to park his car in turn seven, reporting a problem with his power unit. This out the red flag once again and effectively ended the session."

 Done

• "This marked the first time in 2015" – I think "This was the first time..." is sufficient.

 Done

• "Both Lotus drivers had emerged" – I think "The two Lotus drivers had emerged" is simpler.

I cannot really see a difference here.

• "Kimi Räikkönen was the first of the top runners to pit on lap 28". This is ambiguous: "On lap 28, Kimi Räikkönen was the first of the top runners to pit" is clearer.

 Done

• "a repeat of a similar incident" Either it's a repeat or it's similar: it can't be both!

 Done

• "after the Finn pitted on lap 30" Ambiguous as you're referring to KR and VB, both Finns! I know what you mean, but it could be clearer.

 Done

• "Massa came in for his first and only stop on lap 38, equipping the super-soft tyres, dropping from sixth to ninth" I don't think "equip" is the right word here, certainly not in this sense. Something like "Massa came in for his first and only stop on lap 38 and his car was fitted with super-soft tyres; he dropped from sixth to ninth."

I do hear that term being used in that way from time to time...

• "Vettel went past compatriot Hülkenberg for eighth at the final chicane, with the Force India spinning in the process, but without contact made between the two drivers." A few things here: first, I don't think "compatriot" is necessary unless it's in some way relevant. Second, this is complex and probably needs to be two sentences. "Vettel went past Hülkenberg for eighth at the final chicane. There was no contact between the two drivers, but the Force India car span in order to avoid the wall on the outside of the final corner."

I took your sentence but left the compatriot in there. You are right that it is not absolutey necessary, but writing prose is not just about what is necessary.

• "Fernando Alonso became the first retirement of the race two laps later, his third in a row." – "Two laps later, Fernando Alonso was the first driver to retire from the race; this was his third consecutive retirement."

 Done (even though here I felt that the long form was not really necessary...)

• "The incident also brought him a five-second time penalty." Strictly speaking it must have been the stewards who gave him the penalty, not the incident...

But then again, the stewards would not have handed him the penalty if not for the incident ;)

• "being called into the box" – as a casual follower of F1 I understand what it means, but it's a bit jargon-ish and I'm not sure it adds anything to the previous clause. Could be cut.

Rephrased it a little bit. I forgot that "box" is not that common in English as it is in German.

• "reporter Ted Kravitz" This is a false title and inelegant. Perhaps "Ted Kravitz, a British reporter"

If British reporter is a right title, why is reporter Ted Kravitz a wrong one?

Manual of Style:

• The lead is quite short and could summarise more of the race and context. E.g. say that Hamilton was on pole, that he led nearly the whole race, and that he extended his championship lead.

 Done

• There's a lot of repeat links, especially drivers' names and team names. I think you've gone for linking the first mention of each name in each section; this is unnecessary, in my view, and contrary to WP:REPEATLINK.

 Done

• You use British English throughout. Surely Canadian English would be more appropriate?

Why? Because the race was held in Canada? I don't even know anything about Canadian English! What is important is that most F1 articles feature the same style of English. And I hope they do, at least for the ones I worked on.

Referencing issues:

• Your reference for the points standing before the race is out of date. This isn't *necessarily* a problem, as you have a dated citation, but surely there's a reference for the actual standings available somewhere?

Replaced them with archive.org links from before the race.

Image captions:

• Most are fine, but the one of Vettel, Massa and a Sauber needs you to explain which driver is which.

 Done

This is quite a long list, but it's pretty close, I think! On hold. Relentlessly (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is looking good. To clarify the points that you haven't changed:

• "Both Lotus drivers had emerged from their pit boxes simultaneously" – this feels tautologous to me, but I suppose it isn't a major problem.
• "equipping" – this is not a construction I have ever heard used in English. If it is a term used in F1, it's unnecessary jargon. Normally, when "equip" is used transitively, it is used as "he equipped x with y", e.g. "the Williams team equipped Massa's car with super-soft tyres".

I rephrased it now.

• False titles are grammatical constructions, rather than being titles that weren't actually earned. They are generally not used in professional English, and certainly not in professional British English. I've corrected them in the article. In doing this I also removed "compatriot", because it is also a false title and I couldn't work out an elegant way of working it back into the sentence.

I should really get back to writing in American English... ;)

• MOS:TIES would suggest that the article should be written in Canadian English as it has "strong ties" to Canada; I'm not terribly bothered by this, but note that any Canadian editors in future would have a strong argument for changing it.

I don't see why they should have because the ties with the F1 Wikiproject are far more important than the ones with Canada. But well, I'll fight it should the need arise.

Can I ask that you (a) have a look at my edit and (b) address the use of "equip"? If you can do that, I think we're there.

Relentlessly (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edit. Thanks again! :) I'll get to the two GA noms I took over from you tomorrow hopefully! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff. Good article. Relentlessly (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs.
• The lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)