| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, I'm planning on nominating this article for featured status soon. I have already nominated it once (after the last review), but it was not promoted (there wasn't much opposition, but neither much support). Since then the article has been listed as a Good Article.
Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I am not a paticular F1 fan myself, though I follow it in a mildly interested way. I have to say I can't remember this particular race, but your fact-packed article gave me plenty of details. It's pretty good: the main issue I have is that the prose needs further polishing. I don't have time to do a full copyedit, but I have listed numerous points from the lead and first section. You need to go carefully through the rest of the article and pick up similar points there. There are a few other points which need consideration, which I have also listed.
- Prose (lead and Background)
- "It marked Kovalainen's first Formula One victory". I'd say it "was" Kovalainen's first Formula One victory.
- "and Glock's first podium finish" → "and was Glock's first podium finish".
- The "however" in the second lead paragraph is unnecessary.
- "beaten at the first corner" - shouldn't this be "beaten to the first corner"?
- "rivals", rather than "protagonists", I would have thought
- "to take the win" is unnecessarily verbose; "to win" is sufficient.
- "amassed" is a strange verb to use for a total less than half of that of the leading driver.
- "61 points behind McLaren, the contest for fourth place between Toyota, Red Bull and Renault was covered by two points" Seems unnecessarily obscure; I'd say: "Vying for fourth place were Toyota, Red Bull and Renault, all within two points of each other but more than 60 points behind McLaren".
- "returned to the cockpit" is sort-of slangy, journalistic rather than encyclopedic.
- "Some new contracts were also signed." Necessary? Similarly, "Thursday" in the next sentence looks redundant.
- This sentence: "Ferrari increased the size..." needs attention; it is not a grammatical construction at the moment.
- "the former team" - I know what you mean, but it sounds wrong; could be interpreted as the "ex-team". I suggest you just say "Honda".
- "The rules stipulated..." Does this refer to rules relating to this particular race, or to F1 generally? I'd make this clear.
- Other issues
- The lead seems too short to fulfil its function as a summary of the whole article, and could be expanded.
- Balance within the article: the article runs to just under 4,000 words, of which about a third deals with the race itself. There are long background and pre-race sections; I just wonder whether the balance between these aspects is right? It does seem quite a while before we get to the race itself.
- Lists within the text: on several occasions we have lengthy lists of names - see paragraph 1 of Background, paras 1, 3 and 6 of Race. Lists of names can be tedious to read; are they all necessary, parictularly three in one section?
- I looked briefly at the images and sources. The Kovalainen portrait seems to have two identical licences, otherwise I can't see any issues here. The sources look tidy.
I hope you find this review helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for all of your comments. I will start making these changes (and checking the remainder of the article) right away.--Midgrid(talk) 18:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)