Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Hungarian Grand Prix/archive1

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of an insane idea to promote 2008 Formula One season to Featured Topic status.

Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Apterygial (talk · contribs)

• You might want to use the full constructor names of the teams in the first paragraph of Background from 2008 Monaco Grand Prix.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Got a better way of saying "were next up"?
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm wondering whether it is really worth detailing the tests at Jerez. If they were at the Hungaroring, fair enough, but the influence on this race tests in Spain could have are potentially quite small. Would we be better served having that paragraph at 2008 Formula One season?
  • I think I've pared it down as far I can from how I first found it. I personally prefer a bit of context in the background section.--Midgrid(talk) 17:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Ferrari used the F60 in 2009, not 2008.
  • Whoops! Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You may want to go through the article and link some of the more technical words.
  • Done, I think, althought I'm not sure exactly where "brake duct" and "hydraulics" should go.--Midgrid(talk) 17:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For standard 2008 practice, you should combine P&Q.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the practice sessions need so much detail? I can understand that they can be quite interesting, but it may give undue weight to something which has no direct bearing on the race result.
  • I've tried to keep them as brief as possible, with only one short paragraph per session. Qualifying and the race are covered in proportionately greater detail.--Midgrid(talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the tyre names deserve proper noun status (i.e., Soft and Super Soft)? I've never seen them referred to as such before. Same with corner names.
  • That's strange, because in my experience I usually see them with capital letters! Both Autocourse and Autosport, my two principal sources, both habitually treat them as proper nouns. In any case, I think using capitals for the tyre compounds is a good idea, as it reduces confusion (especially because commentators, pundits etc. usually describe the two compounds as "soft" and "hard", whatever Bridgestone's official designations are).--Midgrid(talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note why you are using the first part of qualifying to describe the spread (it is mentioned before, but once more can't hurt).
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per MOS:IMAGES, people in images should generally face the text. There are a few you can swap in this article to achieve this (Glock, and Kovalainen, for example). In addition, the images need alt text.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "sandwiched" seems a little informal.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Trulli finished seventh, ahead of a very disappointed Kubica, who was very disappointed with the uncompetitive performance of his car at the Grand Prix closest to his home country of Poland." Bit of repetition.
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The podium finishers were overshadowed by the ill fortune of both the weekend's pace-setters, Hamilton and Massa." Who facilitated the overshadowing? The media?
  • Done.--Midgrid(talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Regarding Hamilton's puncture, Hirohide Hamashima of Bridgestone said that it was impossible to identify its cause definitively due to the damage the tyre had sustained, but that the failure was caused by debris." May need rewording to highlight that the ambiguity was caused by not knowing what type of debris caused the puncture, not whether it was debris or not.

Apart from those largely minor points, it should be said that this is a very well written article. I would seriously consider taking it to FAC when this PR is done, as GA would seem to be a waste of time with this one. Apterygial 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review! I'll address the remaining points later on.--Midgrid(talk) 17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Thanks again for the review!--Midgrid(talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. The sourcing looks good.

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.) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!--Midgrid(talk) 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]