Wikipedia:Featured article review/2005 United States Grand Prix/archive1
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 13:11, 6 November 2007.
2005 United States Grand Prix
Review commentary
- Notified WP:F1
TV Coverage section part heavily unreferenced. Article suffers from a "notes" turned "trivia"-like section. Needs to be referenced to be brought back up to FA standard. Davnel03 17:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the notes section was fairly trivia-like. That has been easily fixed by either moving the material into the main text, or deleting it as not notable. I also agree that the TV coverage section needs to be referenced (as well as de-crufted quite severely). This should not be particularly difficult to achieve. 4u1e 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the section on TV coverage. That may sound a bit dramatic, but 90% of it was statements that various TV channels did indeed show the race (with details of who the presenters were, and whether they were embarrassed or not). That is not notable, since they always show the races. The only notable bit remaining was the claim that TSN in Canada did not show the race - but a quick google shows no evidence to support that statement, and I couldn't find anything on the TSN website either. If others disagree and feel that material should be reinstated, can I suggest that it should focus only on any stations that did not show the race, with appropriate references.
- I think that addresses both of Davnel's concerns. Some may feel that the article is not comprehensive without a section on TV coverage - and if this is notable it should be easy to find relevant references. The writing is a little magazine style for my taste, but I don't know that that is serious enough for the article to be failed here. Could others comment on that? Cheers. 4u1e 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and trivia (4). Marskell 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notes (aka trivia) section has gone. TV section has gone. Only reason I can see for de-listing would be if we felt that some kind of material on TV coverage was necessary for completeness. However, I couldn't find any evidence of anyone actually pulling TV coverage of the race, which is about the only thing that would be notable. Please note that I did some work on previous versions of this article (so may not be seen as neutral), and have only looked at those issues that were brought up for review. 4u1e 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Referencing is appropriate for an article of this length, trivia section has been removed. I have also improved small sections of the prose to keep it at FA standard. Otherwise it provides netural, stable and comprehensive detail of the event. AlexJ 15:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references need formatting. In starting to do that, I noticed an error in the title and info being sourced with the second ref. Perhaps they should all be audited. Marskell 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can do. As this issue has only just been uncovered, can we leave this a couple of days to fix? Cheers. 4u1e 19:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (By the by, as the only two (minor) problems raised at FAR were fixed ages ago, why did this proceed to to FARC? 4u1e 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Looking at refs a bit more closely, I interpret Marskell's point to be that the refs (which are almost all web based) do not have publication dates. I can't see any other systematic problems in formatting. They are not in cite web format, but neither are they required to be (I'll probably put them in cite web, as it happens, but the article cannot be failed if that is its only shortcoming). Could Marskell confirm whether I have understood the point correctly? Cheers. 4u1e 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And obviously the other point would be inaccurate use of references, which, having gotten into the article, I wholeheartedly agree is an issue. 4u1e 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at refs a bit more closely, I interpret Marskell's point to be that the refs (which are almost all web based) do not have publication dates. I can't see any other systematic problems in formatting. They are not in cite web format, but neither are they required to be (I'll probably put them in cite web, as it happens, but the article cannot be failed if that is its only shortcoming). Could Marskell confirm whether I have understood the point correctly? Cheers. 4u1e 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (By the by, as the only two (minor) problems raised at FAR were fixed ages ago, why did this proceed to to FARC? 4u1e 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Yes, those are the issues. They lack publication dates and, though the web addresses indicate them usually, publishers aren't specifically listed. Factual accuracy is a concern because I only looked at two and found an error; perhaps that's a one-off but it wouldn't hurt to check them. We can wait while you work. Marskell 15:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm finding a lot of little detail inaccuracies, but nothing to die in a ditch over (as they say). When I've done that I'll do the formatting. I think publisher probably = web page for all the articles used, but will check. 4u1e 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, those are the issues. They lack publication dates and, though the web addresses indicate them usually, publishers aren't specifically listed. Factual accuracy is a concern because I only looked at two and found an error; perhaps that's a one-off but it wouldn't hurt to check them. We can wait while you work. Marskell 15:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This should take U.S. English, incidentally (e.g. tyre --> tire). Marskell 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.