Talk:2015 Belgian Grand Prix

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Belgian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z105space (talk · contribs) 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this article. Comments will appear soon. Z105space (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Background

• There should be a mention of Pirelli being Formula One's sole tyre supplier.

 Done

• "Constructors standings" - The world standings should be replace with championship which should be capitalised.

 Done

Regulation changes

• Delink Daniel Ricciardo in this section as he is already linked in a another sentence in the main background sub-section.

Removed all repeat links (there were a couple more).

Lotus legal troubles

• It would be helpful to explain who Bernie Ecclestone is to the general audience.

 Done

Free practice

• "two 1.5-hour sessions on Friday and another one-hour session before qualifying on Saturday" - I feel the word 1.5-hour should be replaced by 90-minute.

 Done

• "The session was stopped for ten minutes to repair the barriers." - Who repaired the barriers?

 Done

• "separated by the Red Bulls" This should be amended to say "separated by the Red Bull drivers"/

 Done

Race

• Wikilink is needed for Virtual Safety Car.

 Done

• "a little less than two laps from the finish," - It's better remove the words "a little less".

 Done Removed "a little".

• "Unharmed by his teammate in second" - The word Unharmed needs to be reworded to Unchallenged.

 Done

Post-race

• "Vettel received additional support from former driver David Coulthard" - Should be written "Vettel received additional support from Coulthard" and you should place the words former driver to the first mention of Coulthard in the post-race subsection.

 Done

• "ahead of the two Manor Marussias" - this should say "ahead of the two Manor Marussia drivers".

 Done

• "He also called for immediate action considering the Italian Grand Prix" -It would read better if the word "considering" was replaced with "for".

I feel that "considering" is warranted, since it gives a causal connection between the fact that Monza is a high speed track and the dangers of tyre blowups at that track.

References

• Reference 3 should have Formula1.com in the work field and the publisher should be Formula One Management not the FIA.
• Same issue above with references 14, 15, 16.

 Done Replaced Publisher with "Formula One Digital Media Limited", the publisher named at Formula1.com

• The Guardian should be italicised in all instances it is used as well as The Telegraph.

 Done

• What would make planetf1.com a reliable source?

Nothing, I stopped using that site a while ago but did not get around to exchange all the instances I've used it at before. I have replaced it now with a link from f1technical, which I believe is a RS, but please check if you think so too, I'm not entirely sure.

I will put his on hold for seven days until the nominator rectifies the above issues. Z105space (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please re-evaluate with the changes I have made. Thank you for the review! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks better. I can promote this to GA class. Good work! :) Z105space (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Belgian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150902074353/http://www.planetf1.com/driver/55667788/74703/Hakkinen-understands-Vettels-anger to http://www.planetf1.com/driver/55667788/74703/Hakkinen-understands-Vettels-anger

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Kph

Common and acceptable? Tell that to the CGPM. Anyhow, this is a quote from an interview. Do we have proof that Nico actually said kay pee aich and that this isn't just a poor choice of spelling on the journalist's part? 93.136.124.3 (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, common and acceptable. Look at the first line of Kilometers per hour. It may not be the official abbreviation but it is common and acceptable and (not that it matters) but I usually switch between them. Now, it's not a poor choice of spelling but an alternate one and there is no evidence but if you quote, you must quote exactly, what trust that she did and bear in mind that kph is a common vocal abbreviation of kilometer per hour, so I find it probable he said kph. And next time do some research before you declare something "wrong". Not to mention that most people (like me an hour ago) dont know about CGPM and those who do wont necessarily care (like me now)
SSSB (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lots of assumptions here. Nico Rosberg is not a native English speaker. In Europe "Kph" is not used outside the UK, if anything he would say "kay em aich" for "km/h". "kph" is only used in a few English speaking countries (I presume, since its mention on the page you linked is unsourced) and is NOT a SI unit, which would be what the remaining 95% of the world uses, and Wikipedia requires. 93.136.124.3 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is a list of irrelevant statements. This is a direct quote in quotation marks. He is quoted as saying kph. If the quote stays, kph stays, it's that simply. You can't change a quote to match personal style preference, otherwise it is no longer a quote.

On a side note, you can't seriously expect to win any arguement with Do we have proof that Nico actually said kay pee aich and that this isn't just a poor choice of spelling on the journalist's part? as you have nothing to prove this.
SSSB (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You have zero proof either for your claims. I at least have some anecdotal evidence, of which you also have none. All you can argue is that somebody's words have been written down and likely mangled by a tabloid journalist and we should leave them to readers to demangle. You have a point, without a recording it would be WP:OR to guess what Nico really said. The only thing I'll insist on is linked "kph" for other readers who might not have seen this spelling. That's sort of why I added it in brackets in the first place. 93.142.89.209 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence? Your anecdotes are not relevant and dont prove anything. Can you prove likely mangled? No, because no evidence exists to suggest this is even close to accurate. If you want to change a quote the onus is on you to prove the quote is wrong, not on me to prove it is right.
SSSB (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)