| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed its second FA nomination last month. As you can see, it suffered from a lack of comments and was not promoted even though nobody formally opposed it. Any comments on how I can further improve to FA standard are welcomed.
Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 15:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Right I know quiet a bit about F1 and am a bit of an expert but I don't contribute on here. So I will do my best to look at it from a numpty point of view.
Comments Remove "Robert Kubica, another championship contender, finished eighth after finding his BMW Sauber car to be uncompetitive at the Hungaroring." from lead as it does not add anything to the article and it feels like it was thrown in as it has nothing to do with the race or what was forementioned.
At the moment the lead fails as Wikipedia likes 3 paragraphs so perhaps you could add an extra paragraph in the lead about the points situation at the end of the race, considering how exciting the championship was in 2008.
- Done. I've incorporated Kubica's race result into the new third paragraph.--Midgrid(talk) 16:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Remove words and phrases such as comfortable lead and just have lead. Perhaps the majority of the race focused on a duel instead of the race was dominated by a duel. Perhaps instead of allowing how about handing Kovi the win. That's just on the lead removing POV words etc lets see how we can get on with the rest...
- Done. Changed to "a lead of over 20 seconds" and "consisted of".--Midgrid(talk) 16:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Background switch the constructer and driver standings so that the constructors is ahead of the drivers in the prose as you have just listed the teams, so it would make sense to have their standings, which then links into the drivers as you state what team the drivers drive for, instead of flipping between the two championships.
The test can you explain that this was a one off test in the middle of the season or something due to the testing rules limiting the amount of testing time. Can't quiet remember but am sure that there were restrictions on testing, so please state this. Prose seams to hint this with teams testing bits for 09 so can you specifically state the restrictions.
- Done. The restrictions on testing were not particularly severe in 2008 (the complete ban on in-season testing began in 2009). Each team was restricted to 30,000 km of testing during the year.
Vitantonio Liuzzi, tested the team's new "seamless-shift" gearbox. Remove seamless shift as it means nothing to the non techie F1 follower or casual reader, plus it is not explained what it is.
- I've linked "seamless-shift" to Zeroshift.--Midgrid(talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"Several teams made technical changes to their cars for the Grand Prix. Ferrari increased the size of the F2008 chassis's brake cooling ducts, following high brake wear at the German Grand Prix, and also introduced a high, "shark-fin" engine cover, and louvres in the bodywork to improve the car's cooling around its radiators. McLaren introduced a revised aerodynamic package for the MP4-23, which comprised a five-piece front wing, winglets atop the nose cone and redesigned bargeboards; all aimed at increasing the amount of downforce and therefore grip, produced by the chassis. Force India introduced revised turning vanes to improve airflow over the VJM01 chassis, and brought their seamless-shift gearbox to the event.[11] Honda and Toyota also debuted shark-fin engine covers, and Honda introduced a new rear suspension package.[10][12]"
Comment Feel that this section goes over the top in terms of techincal detail. Could easily be summerised as Honda Toyota and Ferrari introduced shark fin engine covers, where the top of the engine cover streaches back in a line to the rear wing sculptured like a shark fin. Whilst Ferrari also made changes to the car's cooling system following high break wear at the German GP. McLaren introduced a new aerodynamic system and Force India also made some minor changes. Still gets the point across and doesn't stump average joe.
- I've shortened the paragraph to "Several teams made technical changes to their cars for the Grand Prix. Ferrari made changes to the F2008 chassis's cooling system and bodywork following high brake wear and engine water temperatures at the German Grand Prix. McLaren and Force India introduced revised aerodynamic packages for their MP4-23 and VJM01 chassis, aimed at increasing the amount of downforce and therefore grip, produced by the bodywork. Force India also brought its seamless-shift gearbox to the event.[12] Ferrari, Honda and Toyota also debuted raised engine covers, nicknamed "shark-fin" for they way in which they stretched back towards the rear wing, and Honda introduced a new rear suspension package."--Midgrid(talk) 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Maybe where you first mention temperature you need to state the significance of temp. E.g. the hotter it is the more grip that the tyres produce so therefore the hotter the tempeture the easier the car is on its tyres. or something along that line.
- I do explain this in the race section, when the change in temperatures had the greatest effect. I think it would be arbitrary to mention it earlier.--Midgrid(talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Style Heidfeld, who was carrying a heavier fuel load than either of them. Pair would be better.
- Cut to just "them".--Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kovalainen then took over the lead of the race for two laps. remove then
handing Massa back his comfortable lead. Remove comfortable, unless you state in the sentences before that 24 secs is like a whole stop ahead, then I guess comfortable is ok.
However, as Massa started lap 68 and changed up into seventh gear. Doesn't contribute to a lot remove the gear change bit and that's ok, as it's a incidental thing and did not contribiute to the engine going plus excessive detail, so I advise to remove it.
- Done. I also found a previously unnoticed typo! :) --Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Other than that fantastic article. My comments are generally about Featured article criteria, 1a) where I feel that it can be tightened by removing a word here or there, not that it does any harm if it stays in. And also about 4) where I feel that there is too much detail for wikipedia or not enough explaination and leaves the causual reader confused. Other than that FA! Sometimes with FA and FL's your just unlucky at the wrong type of people look at the list when you nominate it. I will definatly support this next time! KnowIG (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your review! I will let you know when I renominate the article for FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)