This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of nominating it for GA, but would like some review of it first before I submit it.
Thanks, The359 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- 4u1e's comments
Just random stuff:
- For a general audience you may need to give more detail on what things like factory team, Group C, Group 6 etc mean. Suggest in the lead you just refer to the 'recently introduced 'Group C' regulations', rather than mentioning Group 6 and the LC1.
Not done I attempted to try and explain factory team, although I guess it is hard to describe. Intro changed to just say that the LC2 was their first car in the new Group C regulations. I'm not sure if I can really explain Group 6, since it was a bit of a wide-open class, but the premise behind Group C is there.
- Looks better now. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- 'managed only three victories' - I think I may just have my NPOV-o-meter turned up too high, but I get twitchy when I see the word 'managed' and the word 'only'. Perhaps replace with 'won three of the X races it competed in'?
Done Changed it to that the LC2 earned three victories to eliminate NPOV potential.
- I would personally give a little more background on the introduction of Group C at the start of 'Development', to give context, but you may feel that is too much.
- Not done I'm not really sure if an explanation of the shift from Group 6 to Group C can be done in a concise manner, except for possibly simply saying that Group C was introduced in an attempt to level the playing field.
- A one-liner as you suggest (an attempt by the FIA to level the playing field) would be good - it just gives some idea of where this came from. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done Added a statement that Group C was intented as a method to equalize manufacturers and teams.
- A one-liner as you suggest (an attempt by the FIA to level the playing field) would be good - it just gives some idea of where this came from. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- de-stroked is probably jargon. 'reduce the capacity of'?
- Done I had added the term destroked the other day, and had been looking up how to link it to an article, but it appears we have no article on destroking, so I'll agree it is jargon.
- 'destroked to 2.6 litres to increase fuel economy, while two KKK turbochargers were added for power.' This feels a bit wrong - how about 'Two KKK turbochargers were fitted to a reduced capacity version of the engine to provide the required combination of fuel economy and power.'?
- Done Changed to say that the engine was reduced and turbochargers were added to provide the fuel economy and power necessary.
- You should give U.S. conversions for units.
- Done Forgot that bit.
- I think there's something missing from this sentence: 'At the rear, a pontoon-style design was adapted, with the large wing bridging the gap and the rear diffusers exiting from below the car.' What gap is the large wing bridging?
- Done Another bit of a hard one, I had figured that pontoon inherently meant that there was space inbetween, but it is not always completely empty. I think I've made it a bit better now.
I'll come back with more comments. Hope these are useful. 4u1e (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you much for this so far. No rush in adding any more, I know you have other work to do. The359 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No trouble. Further comments:
- Are you sure you want 1 decimal place for cubic inches? I know that technically you've matched the number of decimal places in the original figure, but since litres are roughly two orders of magnitude bigger than cubic inches, it's perhaps not appropriate.
- Done My mistake, I haven't used those auto conversion templates much so I wasn't quite sure what the 1 was for.
- I would wikilink the 1983 season again at the start of the '1983' section. I know it's already linked in the lead, but that's a semi-separate piece, and the link would be useful here. Definitely link the seasons that are not linked in the lead (1984 and 1985) in the main text.
- Done
- tire or tyre? My favourite argument :) It's not as clear cut here as it often is for F1, which has on average been dominated by British teams. I've read somewhere that European English, representing an Italian team, sponsor and (mostly) drivers, follows UK English for spelling, but I don't know if that's the case in practice.
- Done Yeah, honest mistake there. I tend to use Tyre on my results templates, but forgot it here.
- 1000km Monza or 1000km of Monza? The article is called the former, but refers to the latter in the text.
- I personally have preferred to use Distance of Location, such as in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. I brought up this problem with WP:SCR since some of the classic 1000km events had already been written, suggesting they be changed to "1000km of Monza" and such. However, there was no consensus, with the debate being that "1000km Monza" or "Monza 1000km" is the more popular usage in Europe, apparently. So the articles remain withou of, but I always tend to put it in the articles I write.
- Without wanting to be parochial, this is en.wiki, so it should follow the common usage in the English language. Is Monza 1000km/1000km Monza more common in English in Europe? You can always pipe it from here of course to use your preferred spelling. 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thinking about it further, I'd be happier with 'Monza 1000km', which I do see sometimes, than '1000km Monza', which I don't recall having seen. But I still suspect 1000km of Monza is even more common. 4u1e (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Without wanting to be parochial, this is en.wiki, so it should follow the common usage in the English language. Is Monza 1000km/1000km Monza more common in English in Europe? You can always pipe it from here of course to use your preferred spelling. 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- 'and the second car lost twelve laps to the winning 956' It finished 12 laps down, or it lost 12 laps with a problem? If the latter suggest you specify the problem, if the former, I think the wording needs to change to be clear.
- Done Finished 12 laps down, not sure if it all happened at once (I assume not, they likely backed off towards the end to have enough fuel to finish).
- Any idea why Lancia skipped Fuji etc in 1984 - were they competing in the Euro championship again?
- There was no European Championship after 1983, so their reason for skipping Fuji is unknown, except maybe to save cost or because they were already statistically eliminated from the championships.
- OK, if it's not known best to leave it. 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- '1985 became a year in which Martini Racing needed to show etc' Did it 'become' such a year, or was it such a year from the start? What changed during the year to make this the case?
- Done Was, due to the lack of success in the first two years.
- I may just have learned an intolerance from user:Tony1, but I'm finding that there are a lot of words like 'actually',' ever' and 'managed' that can be cut from the text without changing its meaning. The theory is that this makes the text more concise and to the point. I've had a go at some of it, but there may be more opportunities to do this.
- I agree, I probably do it too much, they seem to just fit too naturally in my writing. I'll try to think of some alternatives.
- I do it too. I tend to write horrendously long at the first attempt and I have to work at being concise, unfortunately. 4u1e (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lancia was or Lancia were? Either version is acceptable, but it should probably be consistent.
- Done I've attempted to change it to Lancia were (as well as several instances of LC2s were, rather than LC2 was, since there were multiple LC2s).
- What has happened to the Lancia machines since? Are they competing in historic events, for example?
- As far as I know two were used in historics in the US, but I believe one was sold and checking the major Group C organisations, none are currently running. I'll try and dig some info up though on how many were used in historics and such (the US HSR series website is down at the moment it seems).
- Nothing wrong with online refs, but is there any chance of getting hold of some hardcopy ones?
- Unfortunately I lack any sort of sports car texts, beyond official race programs for the past few 24 Hours of Daytona (AKA, not much help). They're rather expensive and I spend enough on my diecast hobby as it is. However, looking through the WP:Motorsport library, I did notice that you and Diniz have the Autocourse annuals for the 1983 through 1986 period, which did cover the World Championship, so some tidbits might be available in there if you can find some.
- D'oh! Thank you for pointing that out, 4u1e misses the bleedin' obvious once again. I'll have a look and get back to you.
Nice clean article, which I have enjoyed looking at. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comparison with Autocourse
I'm reading through again and comparing with the 83/84/85 Autocourses. All seems pretty consistent; I'm tweaking where it seems useful and will try to ref to the books in a few places, more for the look of the thing than because there're any real differences. Some further thoughts:
- The team field is not showing up in the infobox - any idea why? Also, should the Jolly Club be listed there? Apparently they ran a car in 1984.
- I initially listed all the teams (Mirabella Racing, Jolly Club, Sponsor Guest Team, Veneto Equipe), but those teams apparently only ran about 5-6 races ever with their LC2s. Mussato on the other hand ran races over several seasons, and Dollop ran nearly an entire season as well. I simply eliminated the teams which did not run much for the sake of space. I did the same with some of the drivers as well.
- Fair enough. 4u1e (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is it correct to list Gian Paolo Dallara as the only designer? Autocourse lists Gianni Tonti as Chief Engineer (different roles, I know) in 1983 and Pierpaolo Messori as filling the role in 1984 "[affecting] more aerodynamic improvements..." Claudio Lombardi did the job in '85. It seems the Lancia Chief Engineers were responsible for development of the original car.4u1e (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I listed Dallara simply because he was the only one I saw listed in an actual designing role on any of the sources, although I too debated whether "designer" covers those who develop the mechanical bits as well. I'm not sure if chief engineers would be considered those who design the mechanicals though.
- On reflection, probably not. It probably just seems odd because in effect Lancia bought the chassis in from Dallara. I think I'm expecting to see a Lancia in-house designer who just doesn't exist. 4u1e (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd guess there might have been a Lancia in-house designer, or at least someone involved in the design, but his name simply can't be found at the moment. The359 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- On reflection, probably not. It probably just seems odd because in effect Lancia bought the chassis in from Dallara. I think I'm expecting to see a Lancia in-house designer who just doesn't exist. 4u1e (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the aid of Autocourse. There's actually some video reviews of WSC races online that I have been able to watch, but they lack any sourcing information (I have no clue who made the video or what it is even called), and I can't link to copyrighted material, so I can't use that as another source unfortunately. The359 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)