Talk:McLaren MCL36

This review is transcluded from Talk:McLaren MCL36/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 08:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed last year's car, so might as well do this. This review will be used both in the Wikicup and the current backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   See #Spotcheck

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   See #Spotcheck. Earwig's percentage is also low.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Spotchecks

Initial impressions good, so I'll do a spotcheck of 12 random citations first:

• 19 good, but "which posed a driveability and reliability issue" is not verified
• 23 good
• 42 good
• 46 good
• 58 good
• 60 good, but "[Ricciardo] ... started twelfth" is factually incorrect
• 69 good
• 70 good
• 84 good
• 86 good, but separatation of sentences not ideal for prose; I have merged them.
• 100 good
• 114 good

So out of 12, ten are good, and two have source-related issues; good enough for me to pass the spotcheck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi AirshipJungleman29, thank you so much for taking on this GAN. Good to see you again after last year's MCL35/M review. With regards to citation 19, the remark that it posed a driveability and reliability issue is a general remark on the qualities of porpoising, it isn't meant to be sourced to that specific citation. I will correct this since it has been challenged. With respect to question 60, I am a bit confused, as the source states Ricciardo slumped to 14th place in the wet qualifying session on Saturday at Silverstone, but took the second start following the red flag in 12th. I will admit my recollection of the 2022 British GP is at this stage a bit fuzzy, but the source does state that Ricciardo started twelfth at the red flag, which is what the article claims (Ricciardo qualified fourteenth, but started twelfth after the red flag). If this is incorrect then I am of course very eager to correct it. Again, thank you for taking on this GAN. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't start 12th after a red flag. Maybe just a change to "restart"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, I will change that to make it clearer. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

A few other things:

• Like last year, I think you could combine a lot of the short sentences talking about quali/race results, but unlike then I won't make a big fuss about it.
• The lead has two sentences talking about "the new 2022 generation of Formula One technical regulations"
  • You could combine the first two paragraphs and make it a smoother two-para lead.
• Make sure everything in the infobox is either cited in the body or the box; alternatively just remove some of the excess detail.
• You could merge the paragraphs in the liveries section.
• "a layout not seen in Formula One" for McLaren or in general?
• Try and find something more to say for the Spanish, Monaco, Mexico City, and especially the Dutch Grands Prix.

Ping me when you've finished with the above; am putting this on hold for now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I will get to this tomorrow. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• AirshipJungleman29 I've addressed most of your points (diff). In regards to your final point, I have struggled to find additional content. Spain was a generally uneventful race for McLaren, and the only option to expand on Monaco and Mexico would be to have a more detailed discussion of strategy, but I don't think the race strategy is very notable in these specific cases beyond what is already mentioned in the Mexico passage. Of course, the Dutch passage is extremely short, but it was possibly the most uneventful race of the season for McLaren, and was heavily overshadowed by news of Piastri replacing Ricciardo after McLaren won the case against Alpine at the FIA CRB. If you have any other feedback please let me know. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just about acceptable. Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]