Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1982 Formula One World Championship/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2020 [1].

1982 Formula One World Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. This is the third time I am attempting to get enough participation for the article to get to FA, and I really hope that this time around, some editors might find the time to go through it and make suggestions. Unfortunately, a peer review I initiated in the meantime also yielded no comments. Feel free to comment and I'll gladly respond to them asap. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by WA8MTWAYC

edit

The 1982 season was very eventful and unique, so I'm interested. I'll finish this later (hopefully this weekend). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Lead[reply]

  • Link "World Championship for Drivers" and "World Championship for Constructors".
Done.
  • Just noting here that I personally read this as being a motorsport journalist, not a journalist for Motor Sport magazine, in which case the change isn't necessary. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While Roebuck has worked for Motor Sport, in this instance, I actually just meant motorsport in general, not the magazine. He wasn't at Motor Sport in 1999 as well, as far as I know. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

  • I would rather say "Constructors' Championship" instead of "Manufacturers' Championship".
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driver changes

  • In the lead, Mario Andretti is listed as "World Champion", whereas Alan Jones is a "world champion". Is World Champion with or without capital letters? Please be consistent with this.
Have chosen capital letters in all instances. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but won none with only one podium finish to his name" better to rewrite it to something like "with a third-place finish as his best result".
Done
  • Did Surer broke his legs or his feet?
His feet, as stated. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar changes

  • "with several of them pulling out of financing the race due to uncertainty following the drivers' strike at the previous round at Kyalami" is quite a large sentence. Better to rewrite it with something like "as several pulled out due to uncertainty following the drivers' strike in the opening race".
Done.
  • "held the previous year" > link that specific GP and not the previous season.
Done.
  • "Two races were added to the calendar compared to 1981" two new races or two extra races (which in case it would only be one)?
Done.

Politics

  • "works" teams is a bit vague. Do you mean non-British?
I have wikilinked it, a works team describes a motorsport team run directly by a car manufacturer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation changes and technological development

  • "making it hard to see while driving" this part is redundant and can be deleted as it's clear what a blurred vision leads to.
Removed.
See above.
  • "including special qualifying tyres, which provided much increased levels of grip during the qualification sessions that determined the starting order for the race" > simplify it by saying something like "including special qualifying tyres with an increased grip level" and drop the latter part of the current sentence.
Done.

Pre-season

  • "The week before the first Grand Prix of the season in South Africa, going into race week itself, testing for the season was conducted at the Kyalami circuit." needs rewording as it reads odd.
Reworded.

Opening rounds

  • Maybe move the heading "First European rounds" above the previous paragraph? (Since the San Marino GP is discussed there)
I had deliberately done it like this, since in that paragraph, I am writing about the after-effects of the first races, which obviously would have had effects on the San Marino race, but I wanted to seperate it, since the disqualifications cover the non-European rounds. But I could change it if you think that's stupid, I am open to that.

First European rounds

  • "was from their number" I've never heard of this expression. Is this correct?
Rephrased.
  • Motorsport journalist > Motor Sport journalist
See above.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This a really interesting article and I think it's certainly in with a chance of success. The content is excellent (it covers all events as far as I know) and the sourcing is (after a quick glance) done well. However, I feel there is a difference in the level of prose at some places throughout the article. It would be good if a native English speaker had a look at this article (English is not my first language so I can't really help). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WA8MTWAYC: Thank you for your comments, see my responses above. Looking forward to more! I agree that the prose might need some work at places. I am not a native speaker myself. The biggest problem I faced was that I am not certain how well I managed to convey the very complicated technical stuff. I need outside input from others to determine this, since it all makes sense to me, but it might not do to others. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at the article in the near future, but I'm positive. I think the technical information is well put and clear, and some things just can't really be simplified. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work, Zwerg Nase. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

Lead

  • ...increase driver security... suggest safety instead of security
Done.

Team changes

  • ...their L4 turbo... I think it better to state inline four-cylinder turbo engine, I can't say I've seen L4 used to describe them.
Done.
  • ...would only be using the new BMW engine... suggest "were committing to the use of the new BMW engine throughout the season..."
Done.
  • The phrase BMW engine is used twice in close succession, suggest rephrasing to avoid this.
Done.

Driver changes

  • who was then removed from the squad seems a little vague, can we say dismissed or fired? Also suggest replacing squad with team.
Just wrote "fired", should work.
  • the car went to Henton suggest replacing car with seat.
Done.
  • Swedish driver Slim Borgudd had moved from ATS to Tyrrell, but was forced to leave the team suggest "Swedish driver Slim Borgudd had moved from ATS to Tyrrell in the off season, but was forced to leave the team after only three races..."
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar changes

  • I thought the Falklands War played a part in the cancellation of the Argentine GP?
The problem is that I cannot really find a reliable source that clearly states this. Hilton only writes about the monetary issues. It appears that the race was originally postponed but then cancelled altogether, in which the war might have played a part, but there's no source which says that particularly. The two sources given in the Argentine Grand Prix article on this are GrandPrix.com, which is really vague and The Guardian which mentions the race being cancelled, then calls it postponed, and then never picks up the thought again... I am trying to find another source, and if I do, will expand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Denis Jenkinson in Motor Sport called the race definitely cancelled in March, so before the war even started, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

  • "Formula 1 Constructors Association (F1CA)": no need for the abbreviation if it isn't used in the abbreviated form. Ditto "Commission Sportive Internationale (CSI)"
Done.
  • The FISA was running the sporting regulations side of Formula One, delegated by the FIA: suggest rephrasing to "The FIA delegated the running of the sporting regulations governing Formula One to FISA." For some reason "The FISA..." doesn't sound right.
Done.
  • ...of the majorly British constructor teams... suggest "of the majority of the British constructor teams"
Well, not all of the constructor teams are British, that's why it is phrased that way.

Sporting regulations

  • You mention only 11 races counted for the Driver's Championship but perhaps should explicitly state all points finishes count for the Constructors.
Done.

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

  • Suggest moving the discussion on turbo lag to follow the discussion on their speed and reliability. That then makes the mention of Toleman a little more logical since it will now follow the discussion on Ferrari. Perhaps also say. "As well as Brabham, Toleman also used turbo engines..."
Done.
  • By 1979, Renault had shown that races could be won with this formula, and in 1981, Ferrari had followed them by introducing their own turbo engine.: suggest "In 1979, Renault won its first race with a turbo-powered car and in 1981, Ferrari introduced their own version of the technology."
Rephrased.
  • ...but did not race with it until the next season. The technology section jumps around chronologically so suggest specifying the 1983 season here for sake of clarity.
Done.
  • But maybe more importantly,... suggest deleting this phrase as possibly editorialising?
Removed.
  • Watson's uninjured escape from a severe accident... suggest "Watson's lack of injuries from a severe accident..."
Rephrased.
  • In other regulation changes, ... shouldn't this paragraph be in the regulations section?
Hmm, but then again, it's a technological change, and since the regulation changes for ground effect and engines are also dealt with in this section, I think it's the place to be?

Preseason

  • going into race week itself,... suggest deleting this phrase, don't think it adds anything
I think I removed this when dealing with the comments above.
  • Surer broke his feet during the testing sessions and was due to be replaced by Tambay at the Arrows team. suggest "Surer, driving for the Arrows team, broke his feet in an accident and had to be replaced by Tambay."
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening rounds

  • On the Wednesday between testing and the first practice session, for clarity, suggest "On the Wednesday between testing and the first practice session of the South African Grand Prix,..."
Done.
  • during a meeting of the Formula One Commission no context for the Formula One Commission, this is its first mention.
I have added a footnote.
  • Brabham abandoned their turbo-charged BT50 for now... probably need to mention why (reliability is alluded to team changes section but worth mentioning again I think).
Done.
  • The case was taken to the FISA in Paris,... grammatically, I don't think the needs to be there.
Now that I read it, I agree. Which is strange, because if it were the FIA, I would add the article... strange.
  • FIA International Court of Appeal sided with Ferrari and Renault... the mention of the FIA is inconsistent with the case being taken to FISA.
But I think it's correct in this case. While FISA was in change of Formula One for the FIA, the Court was still a body of the FIA, the main organisation.
  • I agree with the previous reviewer that the "First European Rounds" be moved to begin the paragraph where the San Marino GP is first mentioned.
Done.

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: I am horribly sorry for how long this has taken. It's always a gamble when you enter an article for review, you never know when the comments come and how much time you have then to address them. I am looking forward to more and pledge to be turbo-charged next time around! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: No problem, I have been neglectful in not coming back to this sooner. I will do some more over the next few days with the aim of finishing it off at the weekend. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First European Rounds

  • Pironi however attacked him and took the lead on lap 46...: suggest rephrasing: Pironi appeared to disregard the signals from the pitwall and too the lead on lap 46...
Done.
  • I was coasting those last 15 laps."; Pironi... grammatically, I don't think that the fullstop should be there given the construction of the sentence, with the semi-colon following the quote mark.
Removed the semi-colon.
  • before falling off in performance. suggest: "before their performance became compromised."
Done.
  • even the only turboengined finisher, you seem to use turbo-charged elsewhere so suggest changing for consistency. Also perhaps mention this marked the return of the BT50 to competition.
Done.
  • Renault teammate Prost. Prost... close repetition of Prost. Suggest: "Renault teammate Prost. He in turn..."
Done.
  • Should mention here Patrese was running the BT49D, not the BT50. It will provide context for the related comment in the second para of the North American section.
Done.
  • Perhaps also mention Ferrari only running a single entry for Pironi.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North American Rounds

  • During the shortened qualifying,... suggest "During the shortened qualifying session,". Also need to explain why it was shortened. If you can't I suggest just deleting "shortened".
I felt that the reasoned for the shortened session was clear from the preceeding sentence? Have added the word "session".
  • who qualified just 17th on the grid: the use of "just" comes across as editorialising.
Done.
  • had his Michelin tyres perform very well... suggest: got his Michelin tyres working well on the Detroit circuit
Done.
  • Riccardo Paletti, who competed in... suggest: "Riccardo Paletti, who was competing in..."
Done.

Back to Europe

  • It has been quite some time since Tambay was first mentioned so suggest providing his full name here.
Done.
  • For the next race at Brands Hatch, the British Grand Prix, Brabham had devised what they referred to as "The Ploy". suggest mentioning the team was now running BT50s for both drivers.
Will need to get back to that once I find a source, I am currently not at home.
How are you getting on with that source? I have Henry's Brabham book, I could look it up to see if it is mentioned there if necessary. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, it turns out, the race report was missing in Motor Sport's online database, but I was able to find and source it through the PDF of the entire August issue. What a hassle. If you find a mention in Henry's book as well, that would obviously be nice! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a fuel pressure issue led to his car being stationary. suggest: "...a fuel pressure issue led to his car being stationary on the grid while the other cars got underway."
Done.
  • ...the accident left no one dead or even seriously injured Not crazy about this wording. Suggest: the accident did not result in any fatalities or serious injuries.
Done.
  • Tambay went on to win the race for Ferrari,... suggest reminding readers that this was his first win.
Done.
  • Arnoux on lap 73 of 80 Rather than mentioning the length of the race at this point, I suggest amending the first sentence of the paragraph to read: "...the Swiss Grand Prix, held at the Dijon-Prenois circuit and scheduled for 80 laps."
Done.
  • ...winning the title, in case he won the last race of the season and Rosberg failed to score. not crazy about this wording. Suggest: "...winning the title; this would require him to win the last race of the season with Rosberg failing to score."
Done.

Last Round and Title Decision

  • While Arnoux retired,... This leaps from qualifying to the race, so suggest: "While Arnoux retired from the race itself,"
Done.
  • Suggest breaking the paragraph into two at this point: "The 1982 season was the last for Lotus team owner..."
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • No author for note 13?
Motor Sport does list an author for this article.
  • Notes 25, 40, and 42: Is F1fanatic a reliable source? For notes 40 and 42 at least, you may be able to use Nye.
This has been discussed several times in the WikiProject and each time, F1Fanatic, which has since been renamed to "RaceFans", was considered a reliable source.
Happy with that. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 36 (Trzesniowski) - this is a book source, so should be listed in the bibliography and sfn format used instead (as per your other book sources). Ditto Notes 48 (Pritchard) and 120 (Higham)
My thought here was, as I learned in my studies, to only include works in the bibliography if they are used more than once. I am unsure if there is a MOS policy on this? But I can surely change it if necessary.
I'm not sure of a specific policy on this but I have not heard of this approach for sources only used once. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • No author for notes 64, 83, and 112 (it looks like Jenks did all the race reports for Motor Sport?)
When I wrote the article 2 years ago, Motor Sport did not give the author names on the website, which made it hard to find out who wrote them. It has since been amended, at least partly, so I have filled the authors in where possible. Unfortunately, this was only the case for the first one of the three.
  • Towards the end, I notice you switch from using Motor Sport race reports as a source to Grandprix.com race reports. I wonder for sake of consistency whether you could continue to use the Motor Sport race reports throughout (not a biggie though, won't affect my support)
I added some GrandPrix.com reports on the behest of the GA reviewer, who preferred an online source without a paywall. I personally prefer the Motor Sport articles as well. I have added the Las Vegas GP race report from Motor Sport alongside the Grandprix.com source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, my support won't hinge on this. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • The titles of some works are in title case while others are in sentence case. Consistency needed.
Done.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the thorough review! I guess one or two things are still left to do, I hope I'll get to them later today! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few replies above, very close to confirming my support here. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: I think everything is addressed now :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good, so have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Reworded.
Done.
  • Motorsport journalist Nigel Roebuck later wrote that the 1982 season was "an ugly year, pock-marked by tragedy, by dissension, by greed, and yet, paradoxically, it produced some of the most memorable racing ever seen".[1] - I don't think this should be before the info on the season, probably better afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
I oriented myself on the only article of this kind to already be featured, 2015 Formula One World Championship, which also has two pictures in the lead, of the championship winning driver and car.
I have added a sentence before the table, again modeled after the 2015 article. But I cannot move the table below the changes section, since this would violate the way all of these articles are done by the respective WikiProject. Such a change would need to be discussed there.
Done.
I have split two which were particularly long. But I feel the others are OK as they are. I tried to group them so that each paragraph represents a race, to make it easier for the reader to follow the flow of the article.
@Laser brain: I'm on it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Please see my replies above. Also, good luck with the last weeks of the WikiCup, I see you are sitting pretty! Hopefully next year, I can challenge you into the final round :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, I'll change my !vote. I fear my goose is cooked on the cup this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Coordinators

edit

@Laser brain: It looks like this article might finally, after two years, have a chance to get promoted. Question: The article received a source and image review during my second FA attempt a year ago here. Are new reviews necessary? There were no new images added since then and very few sources. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think fresh image/source reviews will be necessary. I see the last ones, and it looks like a couple of reviewers here looked at the images and sources as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Alright, thank you! I don't know the procedure, is three support votes enough? Maybe not? It's so hard to find reviewers these days... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: I understand! Reviewers are always in short supply. It's not really a count—three supports is sort of a de facto number where we start looking at whether the nomination can be considered for promotion but the quality of the review is what really matters. Next time I pass through the list I'll take a look at where we are. --Laser brain (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thank you :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

edit

Sorry to see this is the third attempt, largely due to a lack of reviewers. Hopefully we can get this over the line. I've gone through the article and picked out a few things, but it's an impressive article overall.

  • "Later, championship favourite Didier Pironi suffered a career-ending accident", you use later here, but the preceding sentence has no real timeframe as we don't know when those races occurred by this point. Perhaps reword to "Championship favourite Didier Pironi also suffered..."?
Done. Also change favourite to "front-runner", since that seemed less biased.
  • "their inline-four engine turbo engines", the double use of engine reads a little oddly here. You know the technical jargon better than I do, so would inline-four turbo engine work instead?
Done.
  • The team changes section seems a little short, is that the only changes made by all the teams from the previous year?
Indeed, I've already sort of blown it up by including the engine information. Apart from that, same teams as the year before.
  • "they reverted to the Cosworth DFV motor several times", when you say several times, do you mean they were alternating between them? Or was the BMW used up to a certain point and the Cosworth carried on from there? If it's the latter, I think this could be made clearer.
Tough to paraphrase, they started with the BMW, then reverted to the DFV for the second race, then gave Piquet the BMW for a couple of races, while Patrese was still running the DFV and then they both started using the turbo from the British GP onwards. However, I don't think it wise to lay that out here, since it is explained in the season overview later on, so I guess the more abstract wording here makes sense? Feel free to disagree.
Yeah I agree with what you have here given that. My only concern was if there was a clear cut-off point for the engines but, if that's not the case, that's fine. Kosack (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including full control over television rights for FOCA", including obtaining full control?
Done.
  • Could the "In other regulation changes", paragraph be added on to the previous one? It's pretty short at two sentences and the weight theme is not too dissimilar to the water tank part.
Done.
  • "The drivers in turn reacted by going on strike the next day", is this referring to all of the drivers in the competition or the six who refused to sign? It's a bit confusing because I'm assuming we're still talking about the six at this point, but note f mentions Mass and Fabi.
All the drivers except for the two mentioned in the note. Will make that clearer.
  • "The teams then moved to Brazil", moved doesn't seem quite right here given the context. Travelled, perhaps?
Done.
  • "even though his car had been as illegal as the others", I'm a bit unsure of using the term "illegal" here as I'm reading it as he did something wrong when in reality it was perfectly legal at the time. Perhaps just mention that Watson's car also used the water tank?
Well, the Court decided that the practice was not legal. Have rephrased to "his use of the water tanks had been as illegal as the others".
  • "After some swaps of position", reads a little clunky. Can this be rephrased?
Done.
Apparently not, changed.
  • "Pironi said that "The 'Slow'", does slow need capitalising here?
Done, had taken that directly from the source.
  • "followed by Andrea de Cesaris", de Cesaris is only mentioned a few paragraphs before this. I don't think there's a need to use his Christian name again.
Done.
  • "Next up was the inaugural Detroit Grand Prix", next up sounds a bit informal. Why not simply "The next race"?
Done.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Have reacted to all your comments so far :) Thanks for chipping in! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, I have no further concerns and I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM

edit

Just some mainly technical stuff.

  • I know it's a "season" article but the word appears no fewer than eleven times in the lead, sometimes more than once in a sentence, I'm finding it pretty jarring.
Done.
  • "1982 Drivers' Championship winner, Keke Rosberg" avoid starting with a number, perhaps make this a complete sentence, i.e. The 1982 .... was Keke Rosberg."?
Done.
  • The table in "Drivers and constructors" has no col or row scope parameters, and no caption, so it doesn't really comply with MOS:DTT.
I think I fixed it properly? I am VERY inexperienced with tables... as far as I can see, no row scope parameters are needed, since no row has a header.
Ah, figured it out now.
  • Are those tyre symbols accessible? I don't know what they mean unless I click on them, that doesn't seem right.
I don't know how accessible it is... but I do not see any way how I can change how those are portrayed unless we change it for ALL Formula One season articles. The only other FA article of this kind (2015) does not have this problem since there was only one tyre supplier in 2015...
  • And MOS:FLAG, I would expect there to be a country code included for these as, once again, I don't find the information until I actually click away from this article. I normally use {{flagathlete}} for these.
Done for the entrants table. Per MOS:FLAG, once a flag is used once, this should suffice. Which would leave the calendar table, but I am hoping that the Grand Prix names and locations are enough here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rounds is used in the table heading but "races" is used in the lead, do our readers know that these are synonymous? Some tournaments have more than one race per round (e.g. British Touring Cars used IIRC).
Changed to "rounds" in the lead.
  • Similar MOS:DTT concerns with the race calendar table.
Done.
  • "one of two new events " I think these could be marked in the table too.
I don't think that would add anything to the table and is definitely something for prose. The tables in this articles already carry too much information to begin with.
  • " Formula One Constructors' Association (FOCA)" you already abbreviated this in the previous section.
Done.
  • "when Italy is due to host three Grands Prix" don't forget to update this in a couple of weeks!
On it.
  • "ten out of 16" 10 out of 16 or ten out of sixteen.
Done.
  • I don't think MOS:BOLD recommends the use of bold text alone to denote something specific, it's another ACCESS issue.
Please specify what you mean.
If you check MOS:ACCESS, it reminds us that By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) so using bold or italics alone to denote a particular characteristic (e.g. pole position/fastest lap) is inaccessible. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Oh dear, this is going to get controversial... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well sadly compliance with MOS is mandatory. It often upsets Wikiproject members to realise that the way they've been approaching things for years has been making articles less readable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Thankfully, the way it's handled this year gave me a way out. Please check if this is more accessible now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grands Prix table needs MOS:DTT compliance.
Done.
  • As do the following tables.
I think I've got them all now... hopefully...
  • I loathe blank cells, I think in the "standings" table you could and an en-dash in the empty cells because, unless I'm mistaken, they are all "did not compete", right?
Is there a rule against blank cells? I see plenty of blank cells in the example tables in MOS:DTT actually. I would prefer to keep it this way, since, in fact, not all are "did not compete". Most are "Did not enter". But Ferrari at the Belgian Grand Prix for instance, they entered, but then did not compete after Villeneuve was killed. Next race in Monaco, they did not enter. Writing all of that out in the table would make it an incomprehensible mess in my opinion.
There's no rule, sure, but a blank cell is like "what does it mean" and you yourself above have demonstrated that it means different things. If information is known, why isn't it included? This is FA so deliberately omitting information seems an odd approach. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Blank cells mean "did not enter". If they entered and did not compete then (depending on the situation) WD, DNP or DNA would apply. I have to agree with Zwerg Nase that filling out all these cells would make the table harder to comprehend, or at least messier. These blank cells don't represent ommited information, it just isn't being stated explicitly in that table, though it can be interpreted with basic analysis of the "Drivers and constructors" table. Or that's how I see it anyway.
SSSB (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then add "blank cell means did not enter" to the key! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I can already see the anger of the WikiProject coming onto me... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No-one there seems too bothered – no-one's commented at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent date formats in the refs (accessdates and publication dates).
Done. Stupid bot screwed it up...
  • Ref 124, isn't ESPN the publisher?
Done.
  • Only some of the online references are archived, some of the archived ones are still live however. What's the strategy?
Strategy is to archive all. Done. Except for the Ferrari link (#123), which cannot be archived.
  • Consistent formatting of ISBNs in the bibilo.
Done.

Otherwise a nice piece of work. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I will address them in more detail tomorrow. For now, let me just say, that in terms of the tables, these formats are debated over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. I do not know how the policy at FAC is, if we can overrule what is set there, but I am hesitant to make changes without discussing them in the Project first. And believe me, the tables in particular have been the subject of many, many, many debates over the past years, including how to deal with flags (though that subject does not seem to have gathered any attention last time round...). I would welcome for a senior FAC moderator to chip in how to proceed with this, since I am very unsure on what to do. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FAs are supposed to follow the MOS and part of that is MOS:ACCESS. Right now there are a number of elements missing from the tables which can be easily remedied. This is not really a local Wikiproject issue once you're at FAC, it's an adherence to the manual of style. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Do you know of any precedent on how to deal with these sorts of situations? I can try to make adjustments to the best of my knowledge (I have basically zero experience with how tables work, I will freely admit), but there are some things mentioned above that would have an impact on ALL Formula One articles and contradict consensus reached in the respective WikiProject. @The Rambling Man: Have made some comments above, more to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from my perspective, this is a FAC issue and not Wikiproject territory. FAs comply with all aspects of MOS and I can't see a good reason why this one shouldn't. And if the F1 project needs to be updated to take that into account, so be it, but right now we're dealing exclusively with this one article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have notified the WikiProject of the discussion here. Maybe this FA review can help in addressing some of the debates we had over there over the past years... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TRM is correct that the priority is following the MoS. Local wikiprojects may make decisions that violate the MoS which is obviously a poor practice regardless of whether the article is at FAC. I'm making a generic remark without having looked in detail at the tables. At a glance, the tyre column looks accessible because you're using a wikilinked letter, not an image. Empty table cells are poor accessibility because they are quite disruptive for users of assistive technology (screen readers, for example). --Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear(er), my concern over the tyre column primarily stems from the fact there's no key, so the only way to understand what G and P etc mean is to click on them and head away from this article, which is highly undesirable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. If I mouse over the letter it shows me the name in alt text but I'm unsure if that's best practice. It certainly wouldn't be good on mobile. --Laser brain (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see it being any different to any other tabulated information with abbreviations: they usually appear in a key at the least. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too familiar with how keys work, would there be a way to add them to the tyre templates? That seems like the best approach, if possible. Would solve the issue for every F1 season article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little like the MOS:FLAG issue. You can't assume that our readers will know that a G icon means Goodyear and they certainly shouldn't be forced to click away from this article to find that out. So either spell it out (I don't really see why we're not doing that anyway) or add a key which explains that G means Goodyear. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I think I am through. Please check above. There was one point where I could not agree with you, but I don't really think it should stand in the way of promotion. The bold thing is still pending, since I could not understand what you mean. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The changes have made a marked improvement. I'm still wary of the blank cells (not being called out by screen readers) so would go for putting en-dashes in them instead. Just that and the tyres issue above I think. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Added key to the entrants table for the tyres (it doesn't align quite right, no idea how to fix that). With the blank cells, I still do not see a violation of MOS:DTT and I have adjusted the key as you asked above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see nothing explicit at MOS:DTT about empty cells. I was echoing Laser Brain's note above that some screen readers wouldn't announce them so they remain inaccessible to some readers. But since MOS:DTT itself features plenty of empty cells, I can't oppose on that! Good work, I'm happy to support this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! This was tough, but I think worth it! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: Sorry to pick on the table again, but is it really necessary to have the single letter "t" wikilinked to an article? It's an almost impossible click target using a mouse and I can't even imagine trying to tap that on a mobile device without hitting the other text. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I don't think so, removed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1982_Formula_One_World_Championship/archive3&oldid=985623906"