Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Monaco Grand Prix/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009 [1].

2008 Monaco Grand Prix

Nominator(s): Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/2008 Monaco Grand Prix/archive1

Another of the 2008 race reports. Special thanks go to AlexJ for his peer review and Midgrid and Malleus Fatuorum for their respective copy edits. Fire away! Apterygial 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you mean "Gentlemen, start your engines"? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to think the engines were already started, tyre warmers off, etc. ;) Apterygial 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note the link checker tool is showing a dead link, but it worked when I clicked through) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are websites listed in the sources in italics? See WP:ITALICS, they are used for periodicals, journals, newspapers. If those websites represent hard print sources, the name should be used; otherwise, they shouldn't be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Apterygial 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a minor point, but there are valid citation guides out there that use italics for titles (For example the Modern Humanities Research Association, a standard in many UK Universities) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments –
• "at the Circuit de Monaco, the sixth race of the 2008 Formula One season." The last part doesn't fit in well with the sentence as a whole. I recommend structuring it like 1995 European Grand Prix, another Grand Prix page currently at FAC. A similar change is needed later in the article.
• "was won by the season's eventual Driver's Champions Lewis Hamilton for the McLaren team." Commas before and after name?
• "with 12 races of the seasons remaining." → "with 12 races remaining in the season." Wonder if the last three words could be dropped.
  • This one wasn't changed. Do you want to leave it? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I didn't notice this one. I think it is probably worth keeping it there for clarity's sake. I'm not really big on it, so I'll remove it if you feel it's necessary. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hyphens for "five place" and "second fastest"?
• "with only Piquet starting the race on the extreme wet." One of these awkward "with" and -ing structures. Try "; only Piquet started the race on the extreme wet."
• "but the damage to Sutil's rear suspension forced him to the pits and retirement." Eliminate a coule words and there would be "forced him to retirement." Needs a tweak.
• "resulting in his pass on Massa. Massa...". Please structure this so Massa's name is not used consecutively.
  • Found another one like this: "and he emerged 13 seconds ahead of Massa. Massa's...". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Apterygial 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "three-times" → "three-time".
• References 9 and 10 are identical and can be combined.
• The Times Online publisher needs italics. Also, make all autosport.com references into Autosport. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. All done except for "second-fastest", which I do not think would be correct in the sentence: "Hamilton managed second fastest, ahead of Räikkönen, Rosberg, Kubica and Massa" as it is not being used as an adjective. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 10 should have been another Autosport article (I must have copied it and not changed the details), so I've fixed it. Apterygial 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Nothing about qualifying in the lead.
  • I felt that since qualifying is only there to determine grid positions, you might as well just say what grid position they started at when you describe the race. Seems fairly normal in F1 articles. The race is the important part, after all. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it shouldbe mention though. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would you suggest? I've said Massa had pole and Hamilton started from third and passed Räikkönen for the lead... I can't see what more from qualifying would be relevant without becoming superfluous. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Felipe Massa was second with 28 points. McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton was third, also on 28 points" so why wasn't Hamilton joint second?
  • The rules for ties are described here. Might be helpful to add a short bit explaining that he was third because of Massa's higher average finishing position or whatever though, I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image captions need punctuation.
  • Image captions should be punctuated according to the Manual of Style, which they are. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They need full stops.
      • Not if they are only sentence fragments, as outlined in the part of the MOS Malleus linked to. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why the image of Räikkönen in the "Background" section?
  • There were no decent pictures of him during the race, and I thought it would be good to see what he looks like. He's featured talking in the background section.
    • Give it a caption to justify this. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Apterygial 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "deployed on lap 62 after Rosberg crashed at Piscine" comma after 62
  • Don't agree that the comma is even desirable, much less necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's necessary. BUC (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• With the Classification tables, does the ref need to be part of the table on it's own row. I think it looks a bit odd.
  • That was the best we could come up with, and it is a lot better than having it at every stat or like this, which are the next best options. Apterygial 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUC (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this looks good. I made several fixes that more subjective, so feel free to revert me. For example, you have a slight penchant for anthropomorphisms ("Sunday morning saw...") that usually don't belong in professional prose. Good work. I am particularly pleased to see some of the things explained (like the confusing fuel situation after qualifying) that previously confounded me when I read race articles. It's good to see WikiProjects apparently absorbing feedback from past FACs and applying it to other articles they bring here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As Apterygial said in his/her nomination statement, I did some copyediting on this article, but there really wasn't that much to do, just a bit of tidying up. Like Laser brain, I was impressed at the efforts taken to explain the more arcane aspects of formula one racing, and I think this article deserves to be promoted. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I found this to be a great read, and the writing does seem superior to previous Grand Prix FAs. Jargon, a concern in past FACs, has been handled well, and the copy-editing helped a great deal. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Apterygial 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: per

Please do so for the Classification section. Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do this without contravening WP:F1 guidelines, used in almost 1000 articles. Is there any chance that these guidelines could overrule the MoS here? Note that I've started a conversation about it here. Apterygial 08:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an example given on the MOS page which points us to List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions. This example appears to use them in the style similar to the F1 tables. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine-ball is using what the MOS states: name the country next to the flag (although it is using it throughout instead of the first list). This F1 article is simply printing the flags without naming the country. Jappalang (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, not by my reading. It uses flag locations in the location table but with no regard to if that is the first use of the flag and not all flags present in the table are present in the location column (Canadian for example, which appears only as a flag icon). I'm one of the first to say that F1 articles overuse flags but when conveying a drivers nationality in a succint fashion in tables it can be useful. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and made further investigations. Nine-ball was put it into MOSFLAG by SMcCandlish at 13:42, 14 September 2007, [2] when the article looked like this. Basically, nobody checked later to see if the article has changed (and deviated from the MOSFLAG). Regardless, the F1 list here does not have multiple instances of flags spread across columns to spur such issues, does it? One flag per row in each table; only the first table would need {{flag}}, the second could do with {{flagicon}}. Jappalang (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't see it working. They are driving under a British or German flag, but not for Germany. If that follows? ' UK Jenson Button' seems odd. Would a legend be appropiate somewhere in the table section? Though all this does seem unnecessary in that we appear to be assuming that our readers are unaware of common flags (They can acctually look up those flags on the wiki if they want!), all a debate for MOS:FLAGS however. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I've removed the flags, so they don't get in the way of this FAC, and in the meantime at WT:F1 we'll keep discussing a way which fulfils the MoS. The flags aren't important enough that they need to be there, after all. Apterygial 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments struck, continuing discussion at WT:F1 in the thread mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.