Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Japanese Grand Prix

< 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 SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [1].

2008 Japanese Grand Prix

edit
Nominator(s): Apterygial

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the quality is there. It follows the same structure as the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which is also at FAC. The article had a peer review here, and the depth which the four reviewers took with the PR convinces me that the article is comprehensive. Thanks in advance for the comments. Apterygial 10:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I am impressed by the detail with which the race is told. I see room for improvement in terms of the writing, as compared with other formula 1 prix articles that are FA, but it is very good quality.--Kiyarrlls-talk 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: How can you support for FA if you see room for improvement in the writing? FA is supposed to be the pinnacle etc etc blah blahblah (well, supposed to be anyhow). And where do you see room? Please disclose full details. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, FA the pinnacle, but there are necessarily gradations within pinnacle, after all, shakespeare and X other being both great poets, nevertheless, it can be said that Shakespeare is much better. love the blahblah. I would love to see what some more "poetically" or linguistically minded people have to say regarding the writing, whether comparing to other prix FA articles or not.--Kiyarrlls-talk 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwarf: Generic "Support" statements are often qualified by "it could use some touching up". This immediately create an impression of two things: 1) knee-jerk, non-reflective voting, possibly caused by WikiProject fan club issues, or possibly by a lack of commitment to the time and effort needed to review an article, and 2) a minor quibble thrown in for the sole purpose of (attempting to) obscure the nature of the knee-jerk vote. Now, of course I'm not saying that you're Supporting for any reason other than that you have examined the article in great detail, read all the sources that are linked, etc. Of course you've done all of those things. I just wanna help you avoid the impression that your vote took less than 5 minutes. Keep up the good work!
  • I was very surprised by what you say. I looked above and was again surprised. According to "nomination procedure" and "supporting and opposing" nominators should ensure it meets all FA Criteria before nominating. However, before supporting procedure notes only that a support "should be based on a full reading of the text" - which does not include reading the sources or MOS or copyright. Note: I don't remember how long my vote took. I read the entire article as well as a FA of another prix article. I can see why it could be perceived as a comment from the fan club.--Kiyarrlls-talk 05:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification for all involved: I have never encountered Kiyarrlls before on Wikipedia, he is not listed as a member of WP:F1 and has (as far as I know) never commented at WT:F1. I would say that Kiyarrlls would have every right to feel confused or insulted by the insinuation that his support was in any way "caused by WikiProject fan club issues". Apterygial 06:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose Incoherent, no context, background etc (which means 1a). I'm not impressed by the level of detail. Writing things in sequential order and adding many details does not = FA; it does not even = coherence (though it lends a surface air of coherence).. Part of the skill of writing involves knowing what to leave out... and how to tie things together well. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask for some examples for how it is "incoherent" and has "no context"? I appreciate you taking the time to look at the article, but your leaning oppose leaves me with little idea of how to improve the article, or any specific issues that have to be addressed. Apterygial 08:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will be in FAC for two weeks or so, giving me time (I hope) to read all of your sources. I have to catch a plane in an hour and a half or so, and will either be in planes or airports for nearly the next 24 hours.
  • Meanwhile, I've only read one—http://www.grandprix.com/race/r801racereport.html—and that article is far better than this one. It does add some editorializing in a way that Wikipedia cannot, but it presents a coherent narrative involving a unified sequence of events etc. I didn't see mention of the cold weather in your nom, and apparently the cold caused problems. It seemed as though your nom tried a little too hard to list every detail... I saw at least one instance where people were mentioned once, never mentioned again, without explanation of why mentioning them was significant etc. Curently not FA material; needs rewrite for coherence etc. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. The GrandPrix.com source benefits also because it is able to assume an understanding of its readers in areas of F1 that we, in a Wikipedia article, cannot. I chose not to explain the effects that the wet weather had on the tyres during the race because the lengthy technical explanation for that would have distracted from the focus of the article. However, I await any further comments you may have, but for now have a safe flight. Apterygial 10:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. My reply: Nope. The article should present a unified, coherent sequence of events rather than a sequential hodgepodge. As I noted above, check for cameo appearances that are unnecessary distractions. Check also for topic sentences that present the topic of a coherent paragraph, rather than... a list of actions semi-arbitrarily broken into paragraph form. Also present background and context. Did I miss the part about how many racers there were? Did I miss the mention of whether there was a prize of some sort? What about the cold weather? Come on guys. Grammatical sentences do not an FA make; neither is FA owed to anyone. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Ling.Nut, for not coming back to this sooner. RL has been quite busy lately and I have only had time to shoot off the odd facetious remark on F1 talk pages. I'll see if I can add more about the cold weather into the article over the next few days. Your comment about the number of racers is answered in the Classification section. The prize, quite simply, is points. There is a trophy given but it is hardly of note and is never commented on at any of the GPs I have ever looked at in any detail.

Could I request that you furnish this FAC with some examples of these cameos that you mention? The article is not a "sequential hodgepodge" and (I believe) approaches the race itself in a coherent and comprehensive manner. The other reviewers who have commented here and at 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix's nom had no problem with the manner in which the race was told. Regards, awaiting further comments, Apterygial 11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • "he was unable to recover higher than 12th place." Reads awkward.
  • "The penalty prompted widespread crtiticism from the media and ex-drivers." I'd change this to say "racing media" or similar.
  • Report: "In the battle for fourth place, Renault had 51 points, ahead of Toyota with 46 points." "ahead of Toyota with 46 points" doesn't read that well if you isolate it. A slight rewording is in order.
  • "Alonso had managed to jump to front of the race..." The is needed before front.
  • Race: "though managed to rejoin after losing his front wing." He before managed.
  • On two occasions, references are ordered like this: [24][23]. They should be placed in numerical order.
  • "Trulli, Vettel and Bourdais pitted over the following laps." How many laps is this referring to? Another similar sentence later gives the number of laps.
  • "complaining over the radio to his team of understeer". Don't like the last part; "team of understeer" sounds like the team, not a car problem.
  • "though successfully maintained his position." Again, he needs to be added.
  • Post-race: "Kubica said that his second-placed finish was better than his win at the Canadian Grand Prix earlier in the season." Minor, but I think the d in "placed" can go.
  • "40 minutes after the race". Numbers should be spelled out to start a sentence.
  • Formatting error in reference 30 (Autocourse). While fixing that, change the pages= parameter in the template to page=. This will make the single page number singular instead of plural. Ref 51 is similar. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting on the jargon issue before offering my support. This is the one thing I have trouble reviewing for; I'm too familiar with sporting terminology. The one suggestion I will give is to provide wikilinks for technical terms, like "out-braked", if avaliable. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no such page exists. My minor argument with Ling.Nut is about how teams and drivers are introduced, and it is my belief that the wikilinks provided do enough to address that (I'm not trying to lobby you into a support, BTW, but I agree with you on the wikilinks aspect). Apterygial 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like this article and am leaning towards support. However I can perhaps understand at least something of what Ling.Nut says above. For example: "Massa pitted on lap 53, and rejoined behind Heidfeld in tenth.[33] The Ferrari driver ... Massa drafted down the straight and attempted to pass Webber.[24] The Australian ... " You'd need to know or work out (not that hard, I admit) that Webber was the Australian to understand that, and that Massa was driving for Ferrari. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copyedit and comments. That was one of the problems about writing it. F1 articles can be quite formulaic (no pun intended) and finding ways to vary the wording is tricky. I came to the (admittedly shaky) conclusion that the classification tables at the bottom of the page could help explain some of the context issues you mentioned. Massa was introduced as a Ferrari driver in the lead and Background section. I'm going to address Ling.Nut's specific issues when I am of a clearer mind. Apterygial 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "hodgepodge" I was referring to is... forex, who the heck are Force India? You just drop the name in like this: "... but was ahead of Kovalainen and Raikkönen, in 16th and 17th positions, respectively. Both Force Indias spent the majority of the session in their garage, suffering numerous mechanical problems." In context, it looks like Kovalainen and Raikkönen are Force India. No prior mention is made of Force India. This is just one example; the whole article assumes a vast amount of familiarity with the topic. That's OK for rocket science articles; F1 isn't rocket science (although they hire rocket scientists.. it's still just a car race). Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the links are there. The teams and all the drivers are listed at the bottom of the page. Introducing each of the drivers or teams whenever they are mentioned would get tedious and repetitive. Kovalainen and Raikkönen, for the record, are introduced earlier, in the background section. Apterygial 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think that this article is full, has quality, fully referenced and is fully worthy of FA status. BTW, I have just added references for the Qualifying and Races timesheets, so you have references there too. I'd pass it. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Fuji.svg - We need a reliable source for this image per WP:IUP. All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easily fixed, and done so. Apterygial 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note: I have contacted Ling.Nut on their talk page and asked them to return and comment on the changes made to the article. Apterygial 00:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - My concerns have been met to my satisfaction and it's comparable to other featured race articles, but the jargon issue is my weakest as a reviewer, in terms of detecting it. Therefore, I'm tempering my support. At the same time, I don't think this is "incoherent" at all; at least I'm not seeing it, and I don't have that much knowledge of Formula One. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good way to progressively lower the bar at FAC. As is being done, here and elsewhere. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm sorry but I am trying my best. I have written this article to the best of my ability. Your contribution thus far to this FAC appears to be simply turning up every few days, announcing that you have serious reservations in areas you appear unwilling to expand on and really giving me very little to work on. I am quite seriously very disappointed you feel that this FAC is in any way an attempt to "lower the bar". I love working off constructive criticism, in fact I thrive off it, but criticism without base or content is worthless. Apterygial 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're frustrated. I'm trying to say that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be flatly unacceptable as a FAC rationale. Every article stands or falls on its own merit, period. I'm also saying that this article leaves much to be desired. I read it. When I was done, nothing stuck in my mind in any coherent fashion, because the facts were not presented in a way that would add structure to them. I'm sure you've edited it since then. I hope to read it later today, after I finish grading papers. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the bar is being lowered, huh? I'm contributing to the decline of the FA standards, which Sandy has said I know as well as her? Come on. If I didn't think it met the standards, I wouldn't have supported it. As I said above, jargon is what I have the most trouble detecting; that's why I'm tempering my support. My opinion above stands. We are allowed to disagree on an article, right? And I do read every article I review from start to finish, unless it gets archived in the middle. Nobody gets a drive-by decision from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if an article can't be favorably compared with similar recently promoted articles, why should it be featured? While it doesn't automatically mean an FAC should succeed, the ability to be favorably compared to a similar FA is an important factor for any FAC that has similar models (in other words, almost all of them). Giants2008 (17-14) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (undent) Two problems here:
  1. First, you took the remarks too personally. I don't think you're one of those watering down FA, but you have nonreflectively accepted a standard of judgment that is symptomatic of the problem (and in fact is a tool of those who have created the problem)... and that standard is, "This article compares favorably with [name of FA article here]." That standard is evil. Giants, just look at old FACS. Fan club passing is a reality, and so is substandard passing because not enough reviewers eyeballed an article. The two problems overlap in fact, and necessarily so. You must take each and every article on its own merits, for fear of comparing the current one with a fan club pass or a.. what's a good word for it?.. an article that snuck past the security guards.
  2. No no no no no. No models. Models suck. Models are evil. Models are for folks who don't wanna think. Models lead to paint-by-numbers passes. Poop—I can't reply, almost, without naming names :-). But if you lean on models, then you can automagically say, "OH, editor X nommed it, it is of paint-by-numbers type Y, so PASS. Have a nice day." IN fact, that is exactly what already happens, and it is a horrible crime against anything vaguely resembling reflective criticism, or quality standards.

Can we get back to the FAC of this article now? Please state any existing problems with the article. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost five days since my last post, and no one has come forward with any comments or problems with the article. I therefore suggest that the article is passed. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If three is almost five. But no, that's not exactly how it works. Apterygial 12:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Oppose for the time being. It's fantastically researched, but it suffers from a lack of serious audience analysis that must be remedied before the prose can be examined in detail. I believe Ling.Nut alluded to this, but the article is full of excruciating detail for a general audience.
    • The run-down of driver and team standings may be inappropriate detail for the Background section. The casual reader probably just cares who was the points leader and whether those standings were affected by the outcome of the race.
    • The whole green tyre thing seems out of place in the Background section. You've written about events leading up to the race, then written about something that really happened in the race.
      • The trouble here is that the green tyres were used over the whole weekend: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Short of mentioning it in each section, Background would appear the best place. I changed the word "race" to "background" in that section to reflect that. Apterygial 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More inappropriate detail in the Practice and Qualifying section. We don't need the granular information on the number and length of the practice and qualifying sessions - it's way too much for a general audience.
    • The play-by-play in the Race section is hard to follow and it's unclear why you've chosen to offer high detail of certain laps. You seem to have highlighted crashes and other race elements that your sources no doubt called out, but many of them are far too detailed. All the pitting and whatnot is way too much, in my opinion. Pare it down to a concise recount of major race events that affected the outcome; every position change does not need to be described in detail.
--Laser brain (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what you've written above Laser, but disagree with Point #3. That's done to introduce the reader to the layout of the race weekend... the layman doesn't know how many sessions of practice there are and whatever therefore that sentence is there to help them gauge the detail needed (hope that makes sense). I'm pretty sure that was a suggestion from someone in the FAC's for the 1995 Japan/Pacifc articles that I worked on a while back.... D.M.N. (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see your point as well, and I know you have a lot of experience working on these articles. Do you expect that non-race fans need to know about all that stuff to understand the significant events of the race? The qualifying determines the starting grid, obviously, but what about describing all the practice sessions? Would you expect an article about a hockey game to describe the practice skate before the game? --Laser brain (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. A quick question before I make some of the changes: are we not also writing for F1 fans as well? Most F1 fans would want to know about the pre-race championship positions, what happened in practice, the incidents in the race. A general audience could skip those details and read the other stuff, I know I do when I am reading other articles when I am not previously acquainted with the subject matter. An F1 weekend is not just about who won the race and how that affected the championship, but about all the other little stories that come out of it; F1 is a race from first to twentieth, and I think we have to represent that. Apterygial 23:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The qualifying is important because passing is rare in F1. I don't know much about it, but I know that. I can see Laser's other points, though (great to see Laser back at FAC, by the way). To the nominator: we strive at FAC to produce articles for a general audience first. I'll come back to re-review if major changes are made, but I am somewhat concerned. If I'm not mistaken, in most F1 races the leader drives away from the field early and nothing much happens involving changes at the front of the pack. I'm not sure how "compelling" that would be for 1a purposes. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Many races would be "Driver X started from pole position, held the lead into the first corner and for the rest of the 71 laps". My point above was that the article was for a general audience, but includes details that F1 fans would want to know. I am very happy that we are having this discussion; I plan to write more similar articles and this helps me understand what will be expected for the future, as well in this FAC. Apterygial 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there isn't a hard and fast answer to this, is there? It is a subjective concern. I believe we are writing solely to a general audience and, thus, high detail is best left to web sites devoted to racing. I agree that racing fans will eat this up - I did myself - but I try to imagine my mother reading it and she would get frustrated. It's not fair to ask readers to skip over things they don't want to read. Criterion 1a is brilliant, engaging prose; to me, that means things can be detailed to a fault. I may be alone in that opinion, in which case consensus may still be to promote the article. --Laser brain (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I continue this semi-philosophical discusion on the talk page? Apterygial 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments - I'm still finding clarity problems that will be burdensome for the general reader. Examples:
    • "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." I don't follow. If they weren't allowed to refuel, wouldn't they be carrying less fuel?
    • "Alonso lapped consistently in the low 1:19 range, setting a new fastest lap of 1:19.101 on lap 41..." Is that fastest lap in the race, or fastest lap ever for the track? Or for himself?
    • "... their teams fuelling them to the finish" Hm, this may be jargon. Can we reword to something like, "their teams giving them sufficient fuel to finish the race"?
    • "Massa spun, but rejoined the track." You didn't say he spun off the track.. did he?
    • "The stewards announced that they were investigating the incident on lap 54..." Unclear. They decided during lap 54, or the incident occurred during lap 54? From reading the surrounding prose, it's unclear which incident you are referring to.
    • "Barrichello and Button took the next two positions, their Hondas proving uncompetitive at the Fuji circuit." I'm not crazy about this statement, because the source doesn't really back it up. It's clear that the drivers blame the cars, but you've written it like the problem was definitely the cars. At least make it clear this is the drivers' opinion.
--Laser brain (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've adressed your concerns. Apterygial 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think this is ready from a prose perspective so I changed to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cars which competed in the final session of qualifying were not allowed to refuel before the race" You mean, they ran on Saturday, but then were not allowed to refuel before the race on Sunday? Isn't that odd? Why was that the case? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it. A few seasons ago they introduced the rule (I think because teams were "burning off" their fuel on the way back to the pits after qualifying). It provides an interesting strategical battle, as those cars with less fuel qualify better but have to pit earlier. But you're right, that is odd. Apterygial 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in "X led from Y"? I believe it's normal usage in British English. That's based only on my being British and being having followed F1 for the last 20 years or so. I don't know that I could prove it! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a new "notes" section to define "out-brake." If you don't like it you can find another way to deal with it, but I think "out-brake" needs a definiton... I'm not done with the article, but my Significant Other is calling me away. Maybe later tonight I'll look again—I still have probs with some of the sentence construction, forex. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm currently in talks with Wikiproject Motorsport about the possible creation of a terminology page, but to borrow a phrase of yours, they often hear a "whoosh" sound as glaciers go past..." Apterygial 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created the page, and linked "stint" and "out-brake" to it. Apterygial 04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: I think we went over this at PR. Although Hamilton was penalised for forcing Raikkonen off the road, and certainly drove like a loon, I think we agreed that it was Kovalainen who actually pushed Raikkonen off the road. Can we tweak the words in the lead so that they are more in line with the words in the body of the article? I mean something like: "At the first corner Hamilton braked late, forcing Räikkönen wide. Hamilton was later given a penalty for pushing Raikkonen off the track, and was critised by the British racing press for overly-aggressive driving." (Italics to emphasise changes) Thoughts? 4u1e (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again we come to that great question: to agree with what we, the sane folk of Wikipedia, see, or what those stewards rule. I went back and watched the first corner again, and you're right: while LH played a part in running KR wide, it was HK who "pushed him off". I changed the first part of that to "At the first corner Hamilton braked late, forcing Räikkönen wide", but I don't think we should stress too much the difference between what happened and what the stewards saw, especially considering the stewards don't release reasoning. Apterygial 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He added that Kovalainen's impact with him at the first corner had caused handling difficulties in his car, which left him unable to pass Kubica late in the race" Would you please double-check the source? I'm not sure tht he clearly made either of those two assertions. He said there was an accident, the accident caused trouble in the front of his car; the trouble hurt his speed... did I misunderstand? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked. You're right, he didn't explicitly say it, but I must have inferred it from the comments. Change to "He added that Kovalainen's impact with him at the first corner had caused handling difficulties in his car, which left him unable to improve on his third-placed finish"? Apterygial 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to FA Director I don't think I could Support this article, but I'm on a 1-week vacation and am unlikely to be able to watch it to see if it improves to Support-level quality. [ The "From[51]:" by the tables looks unprofessional, can't we find a better way to do this... the tables comprise entire sections, is that a violation of MOS? No time to look.. and some sentences in later sections are still clumsy]. I have stricken my Oppose, just becaue I don't think it's fair to let it stand when I can't keep up with events. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's desirable to place a single row at the bottom of the table, spanning all columns, that includes a proper citation for the table data. Having no citation is not a good solution. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Does it look OK like that? =) D.M.N. (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now, sorry!). Support There are an awful lot of short sentences following each other in the race section. We need to get more variety into the flow of the text and work on clarifying the connections between the facts. I'll help, but as ever, my time is limited! 4u1e (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tweaked to hopefully make the text flow better and make the progress of the race clearer in places. Opposition is struck. 4u1e (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support—I'm struck by the similarities between this article and the single-game college football articles I've submitted to FAC in the past. You're forced to strike a balance between explaining everything and taking away from the event by explaining too much. Here, I think the authors have done a good job wikilinking relevant terms and explaining events in clear, concise prose. I'm not a regular Formula One follower, but I was able to follow the content of the article and understand it after a quick readthrough. I do have a few concerns, however.
  • The citations seem to vary in format in places. In #17, the publication date comes before the title. In most of the rest, it comes after. Some of the other citations also seem to lack author info, but I assume that's because no specific author is listed.
  • I may have missed it, but I don't see a mention of who eventually won the championship that year. I clicked on the Wikilink to get that information, but putting that information in this article will help readers put the race into context a little bit better.
  • The previous editor mentioned not caring for the short, staccato sentences in the race section. Personally, I find them a breath of fresh air. Too often, I find myself writing lengthy sentences in order to cram every bit of information possible into a paragraph.

I hope these items help you improve the article, and once they're complete, you have my full support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to JKBrooks85's comments (in order):

The date comes at the start because the templates cite news and cite web do that if you put an author into the field. Note the date of the work only comes at the beginning if an author is present. I can't see what can be done.
I have added a bit in the intro. Does it look OK?
I agree with you there.

Also, re. table citation: does it really need to be part of the table? If we aren't going to have it the way it was (which I put there, and I also think I was the first to do it that way), can't we just have it underneath the table instead? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:02, 19 January 2009 (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/2008_Japanese_Grand_Prix&oldid=1212171148"