Wikipedia

Talk:McLaren MCL35/GA1

< Talk:McLaren MCL35
Latest comment: 1 year ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago85 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply


Oldest outstanding nomination, eh? Don't really get why, but I'll review it now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • I suspect it was because of the length and the lack of GA reviewers with an interest in F1, but thank you for taking it on. I'm currently in the midst of university exams but I will address your comments whenever I have time this week. Exams finish next Thursday so I will be free after that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

General notes edit

  • Extremely thorough referencing — well done. References appear to be from generally reliable sources.
    • However, numerous citations have url-status CS1 maintenance errors.
      • Please have a look at citations 9, 10, 21, 25, 30, 34/5, 122/3, 124, 129, 130, 132, 209, 216/7, 221/2, 226/7, 263, 272/3, 277, 280-285, 287-301, 303-312, 314-348, 350/1, and 353:2021.
    • Random citation spot-check:
      • 16 good
      • 88 good
      • 104 good
      • 106 good
      • 143 good
      • 156 good
      • 267 good
      • 286 good
      • Sampling is all fine.
  • I have corrected some small instances of American spelling in the text.
  • Copyvio 24.8%, so plagiarism unlikely.
  • Mostly follows MOS, and prose is mostly clear. Exceptions of lesser quality will be highlighted below.
    • Most of these problems involve a superfluity of drivers' names, when pronouns and subclauses would be preferable.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lead & infobox edit

  • First paragraph could be a bit longer. At the moment, there are five rather short paragraphs—would suggest fusing them into four or even three paragraphs of longer length.
  • " featuring a new aerodynamic design that increased efficiency and was better optimized for Renault engines." Two points: "efficiency" - what specifically? Fuel? Speed? Something else? Make sure its not a weasel word. Secondly, Renault engines could use a link.
  • Might want to link "was extended into 2021" to 2021 Formula One World Championship#Regulation changes.
  • " setting one track record" --> "setting a track record at [insert track here]."
  • "Over the course of the season, two fastest laps, one pole position, and five podiums were achieved with the updated car." Wordy, passive voice unneeded. Perhaps combine with previous sentence.
  • 2010 is linked but 2012 isn't. Perhaps link the races instead of the championships.
  • "and the two seasons it was used in saw a considerable improvement in the team's performance" --> "and the team's results improved considerably during the two seasons"
  • "the top two" - don't assume everyone reading the article is an F1 fan.
    • I'm not going to name the teams here since I don't think it's relevant to a general overview of the MCL35. Instead I changed it from "top two" to "leading teams". 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • there should be some sort of wikilink for turbo-hybrid era
  • In infobox:
    • Was the battery supplied by anyone? Same for clutch.
      • Renault for the battery and McLaren Applied Technologies for the clutch, but I'll double-check to see if these can be combined with the electric motor and transmission fields. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Any possible expansion about the brakes?

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Background edit

  • "the pace deficit to the top three teams which at that point was still over a second" — again, be definite. Which teams were they, and was the one-second-loss in qualifying or the race, or both?
    • Since this section is on development rather than competition I've again changed it to "leading teams" – they're introduced properly later on. THe loss was in both so I've labelled it "overall pace deficit" which is hopefully clear enough. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • You can relink and put the full names of everyone featured in the lead. Lead and main body are treated separately.
  • "the MCL35 had a greater emphasis on the outwash effect" — a car can't emphasise anything, presumably it was built with a greater emphasis.
  • Do you think incorporating the 2021 livery section into the main livery section would work?
    • No, since that would break the chronology of the article. This background section is really dedicated to the original MCL35 and its contextual information. I've changed § Initial design and development to § Original design and development but if that isn't clear enough I'm open to suggestions. Possibly I could split § Competition and development history into two sections, one for the original car and one for the updated spec, and then merge the current § Background into the MCL35 section. 5225C (talk • contributions)
      • I think that might work better. I'll wait for you to make any such changes before I pass through the MCL35M section (and after). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

MCL35: 2020 season edit

Pre-season edit

Opening rounds and double-header events edit

  • "Norris qualified fourth and was promoted to third after a penalty was given to Lewis Hamilton, while Sainz qualified eighth. This was McLaren's best grid start since the 2016 Austrian Grand Prix." Firstly, what was the best grid start? Norris only, or both teammates together, or both? Secondly, try to join the sentences.
  • "On the final lap"
  • The constant 'at the [insert Grand Prix]]...Norris had this position in the WDC, Sainz had this position' is a little too WP:PROSELINE for my liking. Try to vary the writing a little. To be clear, it's not something that could fail this GAN, but it's something to look out for. I could copyedit it, if you wish.
  • "Both drivers referenced tyre management as their main challenge as Norris and Sainz finished..." --> "after they finished..."
  • "McLaren was overtaken by Ferrari in the WCC and left the round in fourth place, two points behind Ferrari." Clunky. Also, the second Ferrari is linked but the first isn't.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Remaining European rounds edit

  • "Despite this, Sainz finished sixth and Norris tenth. Sainz improved to ninth and Norris fell to seventh in the WDC" connect sentences.
  • "they matched" --> "they had matched"? Also, who's 'they', since neither Sainz or Norris were at McLaren in 2018?
  • "Despite concerns during pre-season testing over the pace advantage of the RP20, McLaren became more confident with the performance of the car" unneeded
  • "During free practice, the team tested a new floor and diffuser compliant with 2021 regulations (less aerodynamic parts and slimmer compared to the 2020 regulations)." Clunky.
  • "Sainz did not start the race" --> "He did not start..." Similar for "Norris climbed three places to finish seventh. Norris improved to sixth in the WDC..."
  • "non-finish"—DNF is an acceptable term.
    • It isn't a DNF though, it's a DNS. Both a DNS and a DNF are non-finishes, but a DNS is not a DNF. There is a distinction made in F1 statistics between not starting a race and starting a race but not finishing it or being classified. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "Both Sainz and Norris" --> "both drivers"
  • "After the yellow and red flags caused by Magnussen and Leclerc, the McLarens restarted the race seventh and eighth. Norris finished fourth while Sainz attempted to catch race leader Pierre Gasly, reducing the gap to 0.415 seconds by the final lap." Extremely confusing if you don't know the context.
    • Added links for yellow flags and red flags. Clarified which driver was in which position. SHopefully clearer.
      • Might be useful to clearly state that Sainz overtook cars on the way to racing Gasly, otherwise the sudden jump between 'was seventh' and 'challenging the race leader' is a bit surprising (I couldn't really remember what happened, so I went back and watched the highlights). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "said that it was the AlphaTauri team's decision to run a higher downforce on their AT01 and the advantage it gave Gasly through the second sector that allowed him to hold off Sainz" I feel like there's something syntactically wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on what. Can you rephrase?
  • Second instance of "published in 2021". Is it necessary?
    • I think it's quite important contextually since team's change their PR approach over time. Would you prefer it removed? 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm fairly sure that McLaren maintained the same attitude from the end of the race, so in this case, please remove it, @5225C:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "During the first free practice session," of which race? Also, the 'free' is unnecessary, and this goes for every other instance too.
  • "Sainz qualified ninth" --> "He would qualify ninth"
    • I have a personal distaste for the "(s)he would" phrasing because I think it makes the article sound too news article-y, so I changed it to "He qualified ninth".
  • "During the race, Stroll collided with Sainz on the opening lap causing him to spin.[116] He was then hit by Sebastian Vettel who could not take evasive action, but unlike Vettel, Sainz's car was undamaged." Be wary of he/him pronouns—can be confusing when multiple people involved are male.
  • "of the 2020 season. Norris finished the race sixth. Norris took fourth in the WDC as Sainz fell " --> "of the 2020 season, while Norris finished sixth, regaining fourth in the WDC as his teammate fell..."
  • "at the Tuscan Grand Prix. Sainz and Norris" --> "at the Tuscan Grand Prix. He and Norris"
  • "Sainz explained after qualifying" couldn't really be before qualifying could it?
  • "the incidents at the previous race and in free practice" what incidents in practice?
  • Rejoin can be one word, pointless can be too.
    • Point-less can't be one word because then it becomes "pointless" which would be read as "having little or no purpose" rather than "without scoring points". 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "Norris qualified eighth and Sainz tenth. Sainz said he was unhappy with the upgrade package." --> "Norris qualified eighth and Sainz, who said he was unhappy with the upgrade package, tenth."
  • " after his pit stop" --> "after pitting"

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Closing rounds edit

  • "re-designed" no dash needed
  • "with stewards saying": stewards don't say, they judge or declare.
  • "Sainz was given a three-place grid penalty for impeding Pérez, which Sainz said was partially due to the weather conditions" source says that Sainz blamed it entirely on the weather conditions, so --> "Sainz blamed the poor conditions for his blocking of Perez, for which he was given a three-place grid penalty"
  • "Sainz recovered to fifth and Norris to eighth while the latter also set the fastest lap of the race. Sainz overtook Norris for seventh in the WDC." --> "Recovering to fifth, he took seventh place in the standings from his teammate, who had finished eighth with the fastest lap."
  • You can do similar with "Norris ultimately finished fourth in the race with Sainz fifth, meaning McLaren re-took third in the WCC by 17 points after both Racing Point cars retired. Norris overtook Sainz for seventh in the WDC."
  • "The result meant that the team exceeded their 2019 total of 145 points over 21 races, having scored 149 points in 14 races." Citation?
    • I don't have a citation that explicitly states that. The only citation I could potentially offer would be the FIA documents after each round. This would not be OR under WP:CALC. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "choosing the correct setup – particularly downforce levels – would be challenging" explain why
  • "the week before" --> "the previous week"; " and his own error" --> "and an error"
  • "However, shortly after Sainz's second pitstop, a safety car gave rivals who passed him after his pitstop an advantage over him." Clunky.

Assessment and characteristics section looks good. Will address the rest of the review tomorrow, but I think I can put it on hold for the moment. @5225C:, please do not respond after the below line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

General remaining points edit

MCL35M: 2021 season edit

  • Sections are a little weird - goes straight from two = signs to four. Also, is the 2021 season heading necessary?
    • Fixed the heading, must've missed that one. I would prefer the 2021 season and 2020 season headings to divide the competition history from the non-competition history. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Development from the MCL35 to the MCL35M edit

  • Last four paragraphs are quite short, and could be combined in various combinations.
    • I've combined the first three but left the fourth independent since it's a change that received coverage independent of the others and was a one of the more notable aspects of the MLC35M. I hope that's acceptable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "Due to the restrictions imposed by the FIA's token system for 2021 development, most of the aerodynamic changes for the MCL35M were introduced in the 2021 season." as opposed to being introduced when exactly?
  • " the team can effectively run" tense

Liveries edit

  • I recall the Gulf livery was received very positively; perhaps include some of this, if it is provided by RS?

Pre-season edit

  • One-sentence paragraphs are a no-no. Two-sentence paragraphs are marginally acceptable.

Opening rounds edit

  • "expected the team would be slower than Mercedes and Red Bull when it came to qualifying and the race and closer to the rest of the field" --> "slower than Mercedes and Red Bull and closer to the rest of the field when it came to qualifying and the race"
  • Reference 229 can be at the end of the sentence.
  • " given his final qualifying lap was third quickest but was struck for a track limits violation." --> "would have been third quickest had it not been disqualified..."
  • " recovered to ninth. After this race, McLaren was" two sentences unnneeded. maybe "ninth, meaning that McLaren became..."

European races edit

  • "Norris qualified for the race eighth and Ricciardo tenth. Norris had a poor start and fell to tenth, but finished fifth; Ricciardo finished sixth." sentences could be combined.
  • "Bottas and Stroll would both be issued five-place grid penalties for the next race and two super licence points for the incidents." probably unnnecessary

Rest is good, albeit methodical. I would probably say that the article, after corrections, will meet FAC standard in every criteria aside 1a) — engaging and professional prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you! I have considered an FA nomination so if the prose is the only obstacle I might go for it. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McLaren_MCL35/GA1&oldid=1093424915"