Talk:2022 World Rally Championship

Entries

I have no problem of adding crews that are officially confirmed to be compete the championship at what-so-ever category, but I do have problem with those crews that are either a) self-announced, or b) already announced which round they are going to compete. That is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's all crystal ball really until each event, there's no such thing as official speculation. We either write these articles in 2023 or there's no reason with good sources why they shouldn't be dynamic and when things are proven to be 'not as intended' we step in and fix it, possibly including the reason. I find it really odd you don't accept it when a driver announces their own program and would like to ask your reason for that view. It's strange you would accept it before the entry list was published if the announcement was then written on wrc.com? My belief is Wikipedia should strive to be independent of the promotion game and present the subject as it is. Sure, anything could happen to prevent that announced entry. We then deal with it in the same way we would if it happened after the entry list was published.

When much of the co-drivers in this article can not be sourced even officially, it's not only conjecture based on precedent, it also appears to be hypocrisy - if unintended. The Petter Solberg Team statement appears to be an unofficial article written on a slow news day, I understand it's not claiming to be an entry but it's far from official, why then didn't that have to wait for entries? It's important to raise this because as has happened in the past there will be a constant edit and revert battle when people with good intentions can't meet your definition of official. Hopefully others can opine here what should be the case. --Rally Wonk (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ingrassia

Ingrassia retired last year, isn't competing and therefore isn't worth an image summarising the 2022 season. Sure he's the reigning champion but we can read all about that in the 2021 article, he's not a defending champion in 2022. I'm also put off by the 9 year old image in Volkswagen clothing that gets repeated year after year. Fresh image please! Breen, Loeb, any other driver would be preferable. --Rally Wonk (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Authorised Neutral Athletes flag / Nikolay Gryazin

Why is this associated with track and field & doping? The source says: "Russian/Belarusian drivers, individual competitors and officials to participate in international/zone competitions only in their neutral capacity and under the “FIA flag”, subject to specific commitment and adherence to the FIA’s principles of peace and political neutrality, until further notice." - If we cannot use FIA flag (copyright issue), we should use empty flag icon. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There's two events. The first was state-sponsored doping scandals in athletics which went to the International Olympic Committee's Court of Arbitration for Sport. Because the FIA's International Sporting Code defers any such matter on drugs and doping to that court, they follow their judgement and ruling. As a result the Russian flag was banned and entrants ran in the name only of the Russian Automobile Federation (RAF).

The second event was the Ukraine invasion which came after the second round, Sweden, and the FIA took their own decision to ban connections with the Russian state, thus the FIA authorised neutral athletes.

The notes on 2022 World Rally Championship-2 has some sources. This article doesn't mention doping so I'm not sure where you are coming from to help more. For the purposes of points in the championship table, flags really don't matter and blank works for me. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

OK I've seen your other edits and think I follow you now. There are no such flags for FIA, RAF or ANA and the "FIA flag" mentioned in your source is "so to speak". These should not be referred to as actual flags on articles.

As for images, a white or empty flag is not helpful and no image at all may be confusing, so the existing RAF and ANA or FIA is better with the footnotes alongside IMO. In championship points tables probably best to stick with ANA. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant after the invasion, "RAF" was/is not used any more. Better to use a wrong flagicon than none at all? I disagree. ANA is a World Athletics creations - never used in motorsports, while RAF directly refers to the national federation - not allowed by FIA. Other sports (such as tennis) use an empty flagicon. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Official entry lists (eg Estonia) have Gryazin's nationality as ANA. Your FIA source says the concept of authorised neutral athletes, (though not mentioned as ANA), was introduced in accordance with an International Olympic Committee recommendation. World Athletics started using ANA earlier than the FIA, after the doping scandal ruling from IOC that the Russian Athletics body was complicit whereas the RAF were not. ANA came from IOC and applied by FIA and WA.

To be clear on my suggestions: Authorised Neutral Athletes (poor quality article IMO) has ANA flags designed for use in IAAF, World and European athletics. As far as I know the FIA haven't designed one. Still, the ANA icon in use or FIA is better than a blank flag as it's not helpful to an unknowing reader and likely to be changed by another editor. I have seen text in the footnotes like "Gryazin competes under the ANA flag". I think this should be "Gryazin competes as an authorised neutral athlete".

I meant use RAF still for the first two rounds in entry lists and those rounds' articles, I don't think you changed them. Rally Wonk (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Further proof of ANA in the wrc.com standings Rally Wonk (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I checked other motorsport articles, and it seems File:Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile flag.svg is used for a flagicon () .--Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you've chosen the best examples of sources here. Another bad example is ewrc-results, they still use Russian flag. But fia.com standings - no flag. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: Why would you link it with an article about Russian track&field doping scandal? Those sources only have 3 letters - "ANA", not "Authorised Neutral Athletes". Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I am not quite getting your points here, but there are two events. Prior to the invasion, RAF flags are used due to the Russian doping scandal. After the invasion, ANA flags are used as per official entry list. (If I were right, ANA flagicons were displayed during the WRC+ coverage at the previous events.) Unnamelessness (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, prior to the Croatia Rally, I was considering using the FIA flags, until the official entry list was released, and Gryazin was competing under ANA flags. ANA is the abbreviation of Authorised Neutral Athletes. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"ANA is the abbreviation of Authorised Neutral Athletes." - source? Only source I find that they should be using FIA flags. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It is crystal clear that ANA is the abbreviation of Authorised Neutral Athlete. Multiple sources are listed in the Authorised Neutral Athlete article. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I get your point. You mean wikilink these ANA flagicons should be avoided because we cannot assume ANA used in these circumstances referring to "Authorised Neutral Athletes", right? Unnamelessness (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, or can be used too. Although the FIA standings don't use any icon. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced with the latter one as per the official website. Unnamelessness (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk: why are you reverting the link to track and field athletics article "Authorised Neutral Athletes", while the source you added states "Russian/Belarusian drivers, individual competitors and officials to participate in international/zone competitions only in an individual and neutral capacity (as Authorised Neutral Drivers (AND) or Authorised Neutral Competitors (ANC) or Authorised Neutral Officials (ANO))". – It is still not the same or anyhow linked to the "Authorised Neutral Athletes". Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Simply put, I don't believe the ANA article could or should be limited to athletics and doping. I linked to it because the term is 'de jure' and it's helpful to have a wikilink to explain ANA to readers seeing it here and on official entry forms and WRC websites. After your last edit there is no explanation what ANA means or what it stands for. There are also no other articles for AND/ANC/ANO, 'ANA (motorsport)', or 'ANA (response to Ukraine invasion)' and I don't intend to start one of those either.

The IOC exclusively used 'athlete' (and officials) in this recommendation following the invasion. ANA now has a secondary meaning beyond doping that the ANA article could include, even if putting WRC and other sports aside. I believe world athletics banned Russians (?) else the article would extend wouldn't it? The term may even extend in the future for another drama for other nations. Let's work on that article?

I cannot answer for the FIA why they chose to follow the IOC recommendation, but they said they did. If you are being particularly pedantic about why the FIA use athlete on entry forms and websites when they said drivers and competitors (and officials) in that particular circular, it might be because there are separate declarations and terms for drivers and competitors (and officials) that the IOC took no time to consider, it being not remotely interested in motorsport. For example, motorsport competitors can be businesses and athletes doesn't make sense here. I don't know for sure, however I have no problem accepting these terms being intended as interchangeable by the FIA and highly doubt anybody else will. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

First, Olympic movement have little in common with motorsports and I don't think anything that comes out of their platforms should be extended to us.

The article Authorised Neutral Athletes should stay as it currently is, because we don't have much from FIA to connect them. If in the future, something comes up - a new article can be made (if it's even needed). It is possible that they change the ANA to something else. It is especially noteworthy that none of FIAs sources mention the word "athlete" or explain why they chose the "ANA" abbreviation.

Besides rallying, elsewhere in motorsport articles, the FIA flagicon is used (see above). I haven't checked any sources, if it's actually the case or they too use ANA or something else instead. It could be discussed at wider WP:MOTORSPORTS. Tennis articles have chosen empty flagicons. And yes, Russian athletes have been banned from most other sports including athletics. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Olympic movement have little in common with motorsports and I don't think anything that comes out of their platforms should be extended to us." - except for what has been courteously explained to you extensively but now you choose what applies. Perhaps tell us then, why did the FIA mention the IOC recommendations?
• "we don't have much from FIA to connect them" - except several entry lists and results lists published by FIA stewards since the invasion, plus the official wrc website. We also don't have any proof of registered trademarks from any athletics entity that these three handy descriptive words "authorised neutral athletes" are their property or have anything to do with doping, yet you accept that and so think the article should therefore be restricted to athletics and doping.
• "none of FIAs sources mention the word "athlete" or explain why they chose the "ANA" abbreviation" - It's pretty clear to everybody else that ANA means athletes through the IOC link as has been courteously explained to you extensively. Perhaps tell us then, which of the IOC recommendations the FIA chose to implement?
• "Besides rallying, elsewhere in motorsport articles, the FIA flagicon is used" - So? There is no official graphic, there is no flag. It's clear from those sources that no flag will be waved, no anthem will be played etc for these Russians. FIA icon is used on 2022 24 Hours of Spa and on the official entry list it is ND, I assume to be neutral driver. (Note this isn't an FIA publication, it's the promotors.) Maybe the article editor incorrectly took "under the FIA flag" as literal as you did. Once again, there is no flag. It is our collective decision to use an image/icon. When you said leave it blank I suggested somebody might edit it and that is precisely what happened.
• "Tennis articles have chosen empty flagicons." - So? Motorsport entrants must compete with a drivers license and also be a member of a national asn, such as Russian Automobile Federation. In the European Rally Championship they must compete under the country of their license. In WRC they must compete under the country of their passport. Stupid, inconsistent rules IMO, they can't compete as independent human beings and it leads us to be in a position where something (ANA) must be put officially for the Russians. So when the FIA say "under the 'FIA flag'", it isn't a literal definition. Maybe Tennis players aren't bound to flags and nations and are treated as individuals, the flags being a wikipedia decision? I don't know where to look. Even so, maybe there is no Tennis ANA flag either.

We can discuss all day, but at the end of it, you have accepted ANA is used but still prefer to leave readers in the dark as to what it means because of needless pedantry and protection of a brand that doesn't exist. Rally Wonk (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: I was wrong, Gryazin (et al.) does in fact compete under an ANA flag, the one the Authorised Neutral Athletes article says is used in IAAF events and the one previously used in WRC articles. Source 1, source 2, source 3. OK, it's still not an FIA source but these cars had to pass scrutineering at least, and there are regulations regarding the name, font, size and image used for the names. It's therefore undeniable to me that ANA means authorised neutral athletes, and that there's a link with the IOC and therefore athletics. Apologies for digging up such a small topic, but I find it really interesting and maybe others do too. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it proves that the flag we currently use is correct. But the link to the article "authorised neutral athletes" in my opinion is still unnecessary. Still not enough - 0 - proof (sources) they are connected to the previous athletics "team" and no explanation why. Or what is "ANA" from FIA. Currently they are just three letters in white backround.

These sources are all from Finland, yes? What about Croatia, Portugal and Sardegna? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Those sources are 1-Finland, 2-Portugal, 3-Croatia.

I would say it is exactly this artwork in those images and would even believe Toksport downloaded the artwork from the Authorised Neutral Athletes article after googling that phrase. Exactly the same artwork isn't it?

Still not trying to imply a link with an "athletics team", I don't believe the article should be that. Not even the leder of that article believes it is restricted to track and field anyway and you wrote it. What's funny is that the article doesn't have a single source or external link that endorses why IAAF/WA even used "authorised neutral athletes" in the first place, or that such a team exists. So I could push you to prove these in the same way you want crystal clear verification from the FIA.

I wrote here and on the talk page how both FIA and IAAF/WA are connected to the Olympic Movement and follow its rulings and recommendations, there are plenty of sources for this. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Championship for Teams

According to the source given in the standings table, Toyota NG are on 75 points having scored in 3 rounds only. I can't understand how they arrived at that, does anybody else? There's no other source, not even Wrc.com or eWRC-Results give this 'championship' the time of day.

According to article 5.3.5, "A WRC Team: Cannot nominate a driver who has been nominated to score points in the corresponding Manufacturer Team in the same season." The very same team and its only driver is scoring manufacturer points every round making none of the entries eligible anyway. The requirement to enter 7 rounds means nobody can now score in this championship. Realised Article 5 is for entry in the Manufacturers' championship, and the Teams' championship has no rules!

Is it best to remove? Rally Wonk (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

1 source and no rules? I'd say remove. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Entries II

If we don't remove withdrawals, need another source than the current one. eWRC acts more like a start-list, it cannot confirm that Fourmaux and Bertelli entered Greece and Sweden.

In WRC2 Gryazin was not allowed to start in Estonia, he's noted on the official entry list as a non-starter. Tilley was removed from the table but Koltun remained even though both withdrew on the official Sweden entry list, again eWRC cannot confirm either. Difficult to say whether these count as nominated rounds without appeals and stewards decisions, but to me should be useful to include.

There doesn't appear to be consistency or good form. As I said on the WRC2 talk page, whenever I've put official forms as sources they get converted into eWRC links. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

fia.com also publishes entry lists. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine can trace the revisions of the cited pages. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 World Rally Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 11:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't follow ralling, but am active in WP:WikiProject Formula One, so I'll take this on. I'll probably work on this by doing a little bit every day. Good luck! SSSB (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pending
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Cleared by running Earwig's Copyvio Detector - 3.8%
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Talk page and page history show page is more than sufficently stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images checked, no concerns
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant, and captions are suitable. Some captions have tense clarity issues (listed below the table)
	7. Overall assessment.

Image captions

• Caption for manufacturers' champions in the lead needs to be past tense: "Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT (GR Yaris Rally1 pictured) are were the manufacturers' champions." as the season is over. SSSB (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• The map caption should read as "A map showing the locations of the rallies in of the 2022 championship." Events aren't in the championship, but are part of it.11:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• The Loeb caption in the driver changes section needs to changed to past tense: "Nine-time world champion Sébastien Loeb returns returned to the World Rally Championship with M-Sport. SSSB (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• "while his former co-driver Julien Ingrassia (right) retired from competition." - for someone who reads only the captions it is not clear when retired. Add something like: "... following the 2021 season."?11:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• Not necessary for promotion, but a picture in the opening rounds section would be nice. SSSB (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to, just struggling to find an available image from Commons. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Calendar

• I've boldly corrected a typo. "Acrossing" changed to "across". SSSB (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• This is a device specific issue (and not a GA requirement) but my screen is probably average for a laptop and what happeneing is that I have the infobox, Rovanperä's image (that goes to the end of the lead) Toyota's image, and then the map. The width of the table means that it can't appear on the page until after all this, resulting in a huge white space. I'm just spitballing here, and feel free to ignore me, but this would be fixed (or improved if your screen is narrower than mine) if the map is moved to after the table? SSSB (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of a large centered map in a standalone section, something like 2023 MotoGP World Championship#Grand Prix locations, but there were other voices, so this propsoal was rejected. Then the map was after the table, but that squeezed the text too much. Ultimatly came the current layout.

• "The headquarters of the Monte Carlo Rally moved from Gap, Hautes-Alpes to Monaco alone. The rally was previously based solely in Monaco in 2006." - I thought this meant that all the stages were held with Monaco, before I saw the stage names, instead of "based", "headquartered" would be better - for clarity. SSSB (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• Niether distances in the Rally Sweden bullet point are covered in sources, only the distance. This should be rectified. SSSB (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• Writting the changes in this section in bullet points is unnecessary. Having one sentence follow each other reads and looks better (I think).

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant it can be put into one paragrapgh. Probably two for the Calendar changes section. SSSB (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• The Rally New Zealand wording is odd. A country doesn't "secure" a spot, becuase it is not the country that bids for the event. Either something like "the rally had secured..." or "...the rally had been due to return to New Zealand in 2020..." or "..New Zealand had been due to host a round in 2020...". "...but their bid to return to championship was taken down in response..." implies that the bid was unsuccessful. It was successful, but it was cancelled for reasons beyond anyones control. So to say the bid was taken down is misleading. The event hadn't started, so it doesn't make sense to describe it as unsuccessful, but "the event was cancelled/not held..." would work. SSSB (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• The Rally Japan sentence isn't sourced. The source only verifies that Rally Japan was originally scheduled as the final round in 2020. The fact that it was scheduled last is an minor detail. It also reads funny and is a little unclear. I have no objections to its inclusion, but its delivery needs to be tidied up. Maybe, "Rally Japan took the final spot in the original calendar. It was scheduled as the final round in 2020 and 2021, before being called off due to the COVID-19 pandemic."?21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Entrants

• Katsuta is in here twice. I get that this is because he is eligable for points and a privateer entry, but the way this is laid out at the moment is confusing. If we have three tables I suggest the first table is "manufacture entries", then have a table for privateer entries eligable for points and then a "privateers eligable for points", then "privateers not eligable for points. Otherwise, we should have a table for those eligable for points, and one without and then you can distinguish the one privateer entry, either by an asterisk. If you elect for three tables, it would also be clearer to have the privateer entries eligable for points in the middle, so all points scoring entries are together. SSSB (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit complicated here. There were actually four championships in 2022, Drivers', Co-drivers', Manufacturers' and Teams' championships. The first and second tables are for the Manufacturers' championships (eligable and ineligable for points), whereas the third table is for the Teams' championships. Katsuta and Johnston are twice here as they are the only crew to compete both Manufacturers' and Team's championships.

There was also a short discussion at the talk page, which we eventually removed the Team's championship from the page given the inconsistency out there. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I've had a think about this, and I think the entrant section would benefit with an explanation of the different championships, to better explain why we have several entrants tables with overlap between them. SSSB (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Or should be just straight remove the third table, which is in line with other seasons? Unnamelessness (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess that would work too. SSSB (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• "M-Sport entered the championship with a new car based on the Ford Puma crossover, named Ford Puma Rally1." the constructor/manufatorer is Ford here, not M-Sport? M-Sport is the team? SSSB (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

When we say "M-Sport", we refer to the M-Sport Ford WRT. They are sort of like a 0.5 manufactuer, a bit of like the BMW Sauber in F1. They use Ford vehicle to compete with, so the constructor/manufatorer is Ford; they enter events under "M-Sport Ford WRT", so the team is M-Sport. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• The source confirms that the engines are unchanged, but not that they are Inline 4-cylinder, 1.6 litre, direct injection turbo engines. SSSB (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Added one source. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Driver changes

• "Extra cars also entered at the selected events," - this makes is sound like "selected events" are a collection of pre-determined events are given a special status. You need to get rid of the "the". SSSB (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• "Solberg's program came to a halt after the 2022 Rally New Zealand due to a series of inconsistent performance." - perfomance should be plural perfomances. SSSB (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• "... with Landais replaced Veillas in Japan." this should be "replacing". SSSB (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Sporting regulations

• The final two paragraphs can and should be merged into one. SSSB (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

Opening rounds

• This opening sentence "New season, new rules, new cars, as the FIA World Rally Championship entered the Groups Rally era at Monte-Carlo." reads to much like a jounralist by-line than an encylopedic article. It has already been established that the season has new rules and cars. So "The new season started at Monte-Carlo", while less interesting is significantly more encylopedic. SSSB (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• It was not until the final stage of Saturday, when Ogier and Benjamin Veillas had a stunning run with slick tyres through the icy stage, that the time difference began to open up with Loeb and Isabelle Galmiche trailing by over twenty seconds. - stunning here is an unsourced opinion. It either needs to be referenced and place in quote marks or removed. SSSB (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Hyundai's 2022 campaign seemed in deep trouble," reads too sensationalist and opinionist. Simple fix would be to quote trouble and ditch the deep? SSSB (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed "deep". "Trouble" is cited per the source 91 "Hyundai is in trouble". Unnamelessness (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• The trouble-some season campaign of Adrien Fourmaux and Alexandre Coria is yet to start as they retired for the third rally in a row... this part of the sentence is not sourced. SSSB (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Added one reference. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Mid-season gravel events

• Heading into the gravel seasons, championship leaders Rovanperä and Halttunen would become the road opener,... - them being road openers is not covered in the sources. Unless this is a consequence of them being Championhsip leaders. In which case a reword should be considered to make this clearer for those unfamiliar with rally regs. "Heading into the gravel seasons, Rovanperä and Halttunen became road opener as the championship leader,..." would word, for example. SSSB (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• he victory also saw the Finnish crew increase their championship leads to a commanding advantage of forty-six points. - the citation for this sentence is from 2021 Rally Portugal, not 2022. SSSB (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Closing rounds

• with Neuville and Wydaeghe took the victory. - should be "taking" not "took". SSSB (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• which was enough for the Finn to secure their first world titles. - Finns should be plural. SSSB (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done.

• By definition a controversy requires some disagreement or arguement. I don't see the source of argument surronding the civilian car. Everyone agrees it shouldn't happen and there is no evidence of cutting corners, so I'm not convinced it qualifies as controversial. SSSB (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I've gone throught the article, when all the above is fixed, I will be happy to pass. SSSB (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

SSSB, think I've addressed these concerns. Feel free to have a second read through. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: I'm happy to pass this, congratulations! SSSB (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)