- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a current good article, and I would like to improve it to featured article standard. I've never taken an article through a FA nomination before, so really any feedback and advice would be much appreciated!
Thanks, --Diniz(talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the purpose of this, I think I'll pretend it's an FAC so I'll compare it to the FAC criterion (I won't review sentence by sentence, I'm not good at that kind of thing):
- References: Referencing in itself looks fine, same standard used throughout, the only problem is "F1 Rejects". In a recent post by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), who checks the sources regulary at FAC, she says: To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. A further complication is that interviews are considered a primary source and should be used with caution
- I'll have a look at all of my references and see if the F1 Rejects ones can be phased out. It will be difficult to completely remove them, however, without also removing information from the article. I think the site owners have access to period Autosport magazines, which would certainly be good for me!--Diniz(talk) 03:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Lead looks fine size, no reason to add or take away.
- I really think the graph should be in the 1996 season, seeing as it concentrates on the 1996 season as a whole.
- "Forti appears in the PlayStation video game Formula 1, the first in a l..." - that to me just shouts out trivia. After all, every team is featured on the PlayStation games. If we to mention every single game a Ferrari F1 car was in or something we'd get a list that's very long.
- I don't think "dead/red links" are ever questioned at FAC, but might be worth creating stubs for some (I wouldn't mind lending in a hand and creating a few stubs along the way as well!)
- I think I can create articles for Vittorio Zoboli, Nicola Tesini, Fernando Croceri, Enrico Debenedetti and Nino Fama, but probably not any of the other redlinks without more information.--Diniz(talk) 03:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- In terms of structure, that's all I have. If it did happen to fail it's first FAC, don't be disheartened... it took me three FAC's with 1995 Japan before it was rewarded with the shiny star! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- See my comment to DMN above. I don't think this website can pass the criterion of reliability as he quoted above, so I'll try to remove as many of these references as I can. It's a shame, though, as I've never encountered any factual errors in the website, and it's the only good online source of information for many obscure F1 drivers and teams.--Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- AtlasF1 subsequently merged with Autosport, one of the UK's (and worldwide) best-known and widely published motorsport magazine, so all Atlas material has this 'seal of approval'. This reference can be replaced if need be, however, with the one immediately below it in the footnotes list.--Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is the website for Autocourse, the well-respected and established motorsport annual. The website was working when I last checked it a couple of weeks ago, so I imagine it should come back online soon. In the meantime, I'll see what web.archive.org can do... --Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- An archiveurl parameter is now in operation for that reference.--Diniz(talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- An archiveurl parameter is now in operation for that reference.--Diniz(talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is the website for Autocourse, the well-respected and established motorsport annual. The website was working when I last checked it a couple of weeks ago, so I imagine it should come back online soon. In the meantime, I'll see what web.archive.org can do... --Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Formula 1 Review: Forti – Constanduros, Bob. Henry (ed.) (1995), p. 71 .. is this a book or a magazine? We need a publisher
- Same for 1995 Grands Prix - Argentine Grand Prix – Constanduros, Bob; Hamilton, Maurice and Henry, Alan. Henry (ed.) (1995), p. 103.
- Same for 1996 Grands Prix - Monaco Grand Prix – Constanduros, Bob; Hamilton, Maurice and Henry, Alan. Henry (ed.) (1996), p. 147
- Same for Storm Clouds Gather? The State of Formula One – Henry, Alan. Henry (ed.) (1995), p. 38
- These last four all refer to the relevant Autocourse annuals (1995 and 1996) given in the "Books" section immediately below the footnotes section. There may be a better way of writing the reference, as I tried to make it more specific instead of just giving the general editor for the entire volume.--Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- These last four all refer to the relevant Autocourse annuals (1995 and 1996) given in the "Books" section immediately below the footnotes section. There may be a better way of writing the reference, as I tried to make it more specific instead of just giving the general editor for the entire volume.--Diniz(talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the Autocourse stuff, I think you're trying to give too much info in the citation. I believe (Ealdgyth may be able to correct me) that it's sufficient to give the author (or editor, in this case) name, year and page number in the citation, with full details of the book in the list of references. That's enouhg for another researcher to find and check it. I don't think you need to specify for each citation which article within the book it comes from or who wrote it - unless there's more than one possibility on the page. So for these it would be 'Henry ed. (1995) p.88' etc. as a citation. The only exception I would make to that would be if I were quoting an opinion, where I might say 'Bob Constanduros says that "Button's really cool" (Henry ed. (2009) p.35'. 4u1e (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. I've left a message on Ealdgyth's talk page requesting her opinion on the matter.--Diniz(talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the Autocourse stuff, I think you're trying to give too much info in the citation. I believe (Ealdgyth may be able to correct me) that it's sufficient to give the author (or editor, in this case) name, year and page number in the citation, with full details of the book in the list of references. That's enouhg for another researcher to find and check it. I don't think you need to specify for each citation which article within the book it comes from or who wrote it - unless there's more than one possibility on the page. So for these it would be 'Henry ed. (1995) p.88' etc. as a citation. The only exception I would make to that would be if I were quoting an opinion, where I might say 'Bob Constanduros says that "Button's really cool" (Henry ed. (2009) p.35'. 4u1e (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)