Talk:2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2008 Hungarian Grand Prix is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 6, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 10, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 21, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
December 25, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 13, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 15, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Testing[edit]

Do we really need all the info on the test sessions held in the week before the race? They're not notable, plus this article is supposed to be about the Hungarian GP, and the tests have nothing to do with the race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every testing exercise carried out prior to a race can have a significant effect on the performance and technical changes brought on by the teams. Now granted the testing sessions mentioned here focussed more on trials related with next season (probably because it was last session of this summer), still there are certain changes brought on, like Force India's new gearbox and McLaren's new nosecone. You can also refer to certain previous articles which diligently mention testing session carried ahead of respective races (e.g. 2007 British Grand Prix, 2007 French Grand Prix, 2007 Canadian Grand Prix). LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This is not written from a neutral point of view especially when describing the way the drivers were driving. I fully understand that some users will say this was the greatest drive of Glock or Kovalainen, but that is an unsourceable opinion. The whole tone is off by making it sound absolutely amazing which my by some users opinions but not in line with the neutrality of Wikipedia.

There are some POV words in there, and also no wikilinks in the entire race section. This is pretty common for the first draft of a race report, and it always gets cleaned up within a day or two. It's not written in a very encyclopedic tone right now, for sure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

I've dropped the page to mid importance (see here), to conform with the Belgian one. Apterygial (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit April 2010[edit]

Following a request at the Guild of Copy Editors, I have completed a full copy edit of this article. I need to clarify the following:

  • Ferrari increased the size of the F2008 chassis's brake cooling ducts following high brake wear at the German Grand Prix, introduced a high, "shark-fin", engine cover, and louvres in the bodywork to improve the car's cooling around its radiators. - Did Ferrari introduce a high "shark-fin", engine cover and louvres [3 items]? Or a high "shark fin", plus the others? It's not very clear.
It's "a high, 'shark-fin' engine cover" and "louvres" [2 items]. I've changed it. DH85868993 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have gone through this as far as copy editing is concerned, I have to stop for now. There still needs to be another check for consistencies, especially to do with numbers, i.e. Xth lap, Xth position or xxxxth position, etc. Full compliance to WP:MoS is necessary for FA. If someone has the time, please try to do this. Otherwise, I will try to have a look at this again when I have some time. Cheers. -- S Masters (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Hungarian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article once so far. Here are my initial thoughts.

Background

  • "The teams, also known as "constructors", were..." Not sure about phrasing here. Maybe just say "constructors" and link it? Or: "the teams (constructors)". Also, 2 "teams" in close proximity.
    • I am hesitant to change this one, because the phrasing of the first two sentences in this paragraph is identical to all of the Grand Prix articles which have reached GA or FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but personally I wouldn't like it if I was reviewing for FA. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ahead of Ferrari team-mates": I know it states that Hamilton drove for McLaren, but this sentence makes it seem like Massa and Raikkonen were Hamilton's team mates. Maybe "ahead of Ferrari's Felipe Massa..." or "ahead of Ferrari drivers..." but this means there are a lot of "drivers" in this bit.
That's fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the battle for fourth place between Toyota, Red Bull and Renault was covered by two points": battle is possibly too dramatic. If it is necessary to cover 4th place (is it?) maybe state the distance from 3rd placed McLaren and then use the "covered by two points"?
  • I think the Jerez testing is too detailed in an article on the Grand Prix. Could it be summarised a little more. I can see the need to give the fastest cars, but I think the KERS stuff (although obviously significant) does not belong in this article as it had no bearing on the race. In fact, I would cut anything which has no direct bearing on this race, but I am open to discussion.
    • I've cut the KERS material down, as it is already included in the Regenerative brake article. Although the testing information is not integral to the article, I believe the brief paragraph it is now summarised in helps to give an interesting impression of the background to the event.--Midgrid(talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "nosecone" one word or two?
    • I've always seen it written down as one word in the specialist press, but our article disagrees!--Midgrid(talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to mention the white stripe on the option tyre?
    • As with the first paragraph in this section, this paragraph about the tyre regulations is used almost word-for-word in other articles, where there are more photos of the cars in action on the different tyres. I suppose it's not too important in this article, as there is a lack of photos from the event, although for the sake of completeness I think it would be a shame to leave it out.--Midgrid(talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let it go if you like. But I don't think it adds to the article, and seems superfluous. Again, might not go down too well at FA! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practice and qualifying

  • "...two on Friday, and a third on Saturday. The Friday morning session took place from 10:00 to 11:30 local time, and the afternoon session lasted from 14:00 to 15:30. The third session was held between 11:00 and 12:00 on Saturday morning." Very wordy: could it be merged? For example, "two on Friday from 10:00 to 11:30 and 14:00 to 15:30 local time, and a third on Saturday morning between 11:00 and 12:00."
  • You give the temperatures for practices and throughout the weekend. I'm OK with this for GA but if you take this to FAC, you need to justify it a bit more. How does this temperature affect the cars? Was it good or bad? Otherwise, it just looks like a weather report (which I appreciate it isn't!).
    • Hmmm, I'll have to think about that more when and if it goes to FAC.--Midgrid(talk) 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "set the pace": explain more.
  • "heat his tyres sufficiently due to traffic" This needs explaining to the non-specialist. What effect does heating the tyres have? And "traffic" may be confusing. Can it be linked?
  • "Crucially, both McLaren drivers had used one fewer set of the Soft tyres—which were expected to be more favourable in the race than the Super Softs—than Ferrari during the qualifying session, suggesting that Hamilton and Kovalainen might have had a tyre performance advantage in the race. This was because the Soft tyre had turned out to be the fastest tyre choice over the course of a single lap, despite the theoretical performance advantage of the Super Soft; Ferrari used an additional set of Soft tyres to McLaren before realising this was the case" Wordy. Can it be cut a little? Also, it seems from this that only a certain number of tyres could be used in the race. Was this so? (I can't remember) If so, it needs spelling out I think.
    • Honestly, I can't think of a good way to cut it. There was a limit on tyres in place, but the 2008 regulations have been taken down from the FIA website, and I can't remember it. I'll ask around on a forum, as I'm sure the pdf file will still be on-line somewhere.--Midgrid(talk) 18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race

  • "out-dragging Kovalainen off the starting grid": outdragging is jargon.
  • "At the completion of the first lap, Massa led from Hamilton, Kovalainen, Glock, Kubica, Alonso, Räikkönen, Webber, Trulli, Piquet, Coulthard, Heidfeld, Barrichello, Button, Vettel, Bourdais, Rosberg, Nakajima, Fisichella and Sutil" Very long list of drivers here. Is it necessary, and if so can it be phrased more effectively?
    • In lieu of a lap chart, I think it's important to establish the running order so that I don't have to keep referring to the positions concerned for every pass or incident. I would argue that having a couple of lists saves space elsewhere in the race report.--Midgrid(talk) 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glock lost a few seconds during his pit stop when the fuel rig failed to connect properly with his car, but did not lose any positions.[22]" If it didn't affect the race, does it need mentioning?
  • "By the end of lap 26, Massa, ... and Sutil." Why list the order here, and same point as above listing drivers.
    • This was after the first round of stops has concluded; I've spelled it out in the article....--Midgrid(talk) 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto "At the conclusion of lap 59..."
    • ...and this is after all of the scheduled stops were completed.--Midgrid(talk) 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "clear air" is jargon.
  • "was the first time that a car bearing the number 23 had won a race since Jim Clark at the 1964 Belgian Grand Prix." Is this important? Seems a statistical freak which is not really important.
  • This section drags a little due to the long lists of positions. If these came out or were shortened, it would read quite nicely.
    • See above. :) I think that it's important to let the reader know the running order, and this is the most effective (although perhaps not the most elegant) way of doing it.--Midgrid(talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-race

  • "The race remains Kovalainen's sole Formula One win to date." Needs a ref, and probably a date ("as of August 2010").

I don't think there are any other issues: links, sources, images, etc seem fine, but I'll have another look in the next day or two. Should pass once the points above have been checked. Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thank you for the review! I'll get to work as soon as possible.--Midgrid(talk) 19:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over it again and no other issues. I'll put it on hold now for a week, but let me know if you need longer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A week should be fine. Thanks again for the review; do you have any articles on review at the moment?--Midgrid(talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think I've addressed (or commented on) all of these issues. Over to you! :) --Midgrid(talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good now. I still don't like the long lists of drivers, but if they are necessary, I suppose this is the best way. I would say that it is not necessary to give the entire field, but that's just my view. Watch out for it at FA though. Happy to pass, though. Well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting points[edit]

Questions from my ongoing copyedit.

  • Perhaps to get around the problems of the long lists of race order, you could just go over the top ten, not the whole field.
I would still prefer to keep the full list of runners, unless it becomes an insurmountable obstacle to FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in one of my edit summaries, numbers have to be consistent (WP:ORDINAL, the second bullet point). This should probably mean that article should have "first and thirteenth", not "first and 13th". This is worth checking.
I've changed the one remaining instance of this inconsistency that I could find.--Midgrid(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we discussed "teammate" or "team-mate"? I've been using the former after it was changed either in preparation for or at an FAC.

As far as I've got. Apterygial 10:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the copyedit! I'll have a look at these questions when the race weekend is over.--Midgrid(talk) 18:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what you think of the sentence "The race remains Kovalainen's only Formula One win, as of [date]". Do you think the "as of..." part is necessary?--Midgrid(talk) 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs it to make sense. The one thing I was thinking is that the date qualifier may work better starting the sentence, so "As of November 2010, the race remains Kovalainen's only Formula One win." Otherwise the date just looks tacked on. On another note, I agree with previous reviews that the lead could be extended. More detail on the race for example, or the role of the race in the Championship (I believe Massa's camp points to this race and his engine failure as being pivotal). Apterygial 11:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although almost nonexistent on the web, hard-copy often uses en dashes for partnerships. This distinguishes partnerships from single sponsors with hyphenated names, like Simca-Gordini or Frazer-Nash. Although anyone familiar with the Grand Prix will with rare exception be able to parse them regardless, Force India–Ferrari does clarify that Force India is one sponsor, rather than there being something called the "Force (India-Ferrari)", that is, an "India-Ferrari Force". A minor point most readers are unlikely to notice, but a courtesy. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Midgrid(talk) 19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though Mercedes might avoid the "Benz" for precisely this reason, imagine McLaren-Mercedes-Benz as a hypothetical example, which the (truly) naive might think was a three-way partnership. Punctuating it McLaren–Mercedes-Benz would clarify matters. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's another: Talbot-Lago–Talbot. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official name[edit]

Congratulations for making FA, but I just noticed an unsourced information that is likely to be wrong: the official name "XXIII ING Magyar Nagydíj". It is at least bad punctuation, in Hungarian it should be "XXIII. ING Magyar Nagydíj", with the dot implying 23rd. But even more problematic is the usage of n-th for a name containing the sponsor name, given that the sponsor changes. Indeed there are only two low-quality hits on Google when restricted to .hu, but eight news site hits for "XXIII. Magyar Nagydíj". Adding Formula One to the name, there is still but one low-quality hit for "XXIII. Formula 1 ING Magyar Nagydíj", three for "XXIII. Formula 1 Magyar Nagydíj", seven for the common usage corrupted form "XXIII. Forma 1 Magyar Nagydíj", and a full 491 for its variant "XXIII. Forma-1-es Magyar Nagydíj" (where "-es" is a modifier without equivalent in English). But leaving the "XIII." off, there are 2,390 hits on the Hungary domain for "Formula 1 ING Magyar Nagydíj", and still 1,790 for the corrupted form "Forma 1 ING Magyar Nagydíj" (these hits are for the three years when ING was the sponsor: 2007, 2008 and 2009). Checking the official poster at the official Formula One site, the name on it is indeed "Formula 1 ING Magyar Nagydíj"; checking the Hungaroring site, the current year's event is named "Formula 1 ENI Magyar Nagydíj 2011". --Rontombontom (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Thanks for the information!--Midgrid(talk) 16:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should include a year, so "Formula 1 ING Magyar Nagydíj 2008". Apterygial 08:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Midgrid(talk) 14:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Hungarian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196517657"