Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Bahrain Grand Prix/archive1

2008 Bahrain Grand Prix

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I can't really think of a rationale for this, other than to say that I want to get it to GA level. The 'Race' section is a little short, but I'm confident that with Diniz's help it is comprehensive. That says more about the quality of the race than the quality of the article :). Thanks in advance for the comments, Apterygial 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AlexJ's Peer Review

Lead

• "The Ferraris then dominated at the front of the race, guaranteeing their one-two finish." - Kinda hard to explain why this doesn't sound right. I think it's because it suggests a direct connection between dominating a race and guaraneeting a 1-2 finish, a car can dominate a race and blow up on the last lap.
  • Hungary springs to mind as a recent example. "leading to their one-two finish." Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Hamilton stalled on the grid" - not 100% true. He put the car into a position where it would have stalled but the anti-stall kicked in (which basically dips the clutch in for the driver). Once an F1 car stalls, it needs a mechanic to get it going again. Need to address it differently.
  • Sloppy mistake, Apterygial. "Hamilton had a slow start after almost stalling on the grid," I'm really looking for simplicity in the lead. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yup, I understand that simplicity is needed, but it still needs to be accurate. My comment explaining the problem and not suggesting an alternative was basically saying "I can't think how to word this in a simple way, you try!" AlexJ (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "The McLaren driver later ran into the back of Fernando Alonso's Renault" - It wasn't much later was it? The very next lap IIRC.
  • Changed. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Background

• "Ferrari, McLaren–Mercedes, Renault, Honda, Force India, BMW Sauber, Toyota, Red Bull Racing, Williams Toro Rosso and Super Aguri." - Williams and Toro Rosso needs a comma. BTW, any particular ordering to the team list?
  • Done. No, not really, just did it as I remembered them. Think it's worth alphabetising? Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Not really. Last years WCC order maybe, but I don't think it matters that much. AlexJ (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Ferrari driver Kimi Räikkönen was second with 11 points. Behind them in the Drivers' Championship, Nick Heidfeld was third, also with 11 points, in a BMW Sauber" - I guess it's personal choice whether you choose to class KR and NH as tied for 2nd or use the tiebreaker to separate them.
  • Since I'm using the FIA source, and it splits them, I thought I might as well stick with that. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. AlexJ (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Race

• That photo at the start of this section, that's one of the best F1 photos I think I've seen on Wikipedia. Stunning shot! Anyway...
  • Yep. Pity about the faint trace of a border. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Hamilton stalled his car from third, and was passed by six drivers to fall back to ninth." - Again, this needs to be redone.
  • "Hamilton's anti-stall system kicked in" Someone really needs to write an Anti-stall article, or at least add it to Formula One car or Stall (engine). Technically inclined I am not. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you think it would work better as something like "Hamilton had problems at the start which led to his anti-stall system kicked in, and was passed by six drivers to fall back to ninth.". That sentence is probably too long, but it adds a bit of context/reasoning to the anti-stall activating. AlexJ (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Any GA reviewer worth their salt (which, admittedly, isn't all of them) would ask "What problems"? How about "Hamilton's poor start caused his anti-stall system to kick in"? Note that I haven't changed it yet. Apterygial 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Changed. Apterygial 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• "rear-ended" - Sounds a bit informal. Hit the back of?
  • "collided with the back of". Apterygial 03:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "who set the fastest lap of the race on lap 49, a 1:33.193" - "with a time of 1:33:193"
  • Fixed. You'll note I resisted my ever-present temptation to provide lap times at every opportunity throughout the race. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • And the article was nicer to read as a result! AlexJ (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Wasn't nicer to write. ;) Apterygial 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-race

• Quotebox "It didn't change anything starting second because we had a good a start." - seems wrong, but both the FOM and GrandPrix.com websites have the same transcription.
  • I think we have to preserve the text verbatim. I've often watched press conferences and wondered how you would go about transcribing them. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'd think that would be the case. Just wanted to point it out as having been noticed in case anyone else wonders. AlexJ (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It's probably not even worth a [sic] template. Apterygial 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hamilton said that his stall on the grid at the start of the race was his own fault" - his 'attempted' stall ;)
  • Makes it sound like he wanted to... Changed to "his near stall". Should that have a hyphen, do you think? Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Couldn't think of a way of describing it, hence the quote marks. I'd say no hyphen. AlexJ (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You know the drill... AlexJ (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to check a few of my changes, particularly those relating to my inability to describe an almost stall. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)