Talk:2014 Brazilian Grand Prix

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Qualifying

The rules will undoubtedly be the same as last week's 18 car event. Would we agree until the FIA says otherwise? Twirlypen (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until it's announced/confirmed. It will only be a couple of days at the most. DH85868993 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New pits section photo

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/interlagos-2014-pit-entry-2.jpg shows a nice shot of the new pit entry. Provided it doesn't violate any copywrite laws, would it be suitable to use in this and/or the Interlagos article? I'm thinking a before and after shot would be helpful. Twirlypen (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good photo, and would be ideal, however I can't really see a way around copyrights easily. SAS1998Talk 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying session

I missed the entire session completely (it's my birthday, so I've been imbibing all weekend), but did the FIA change the 4+4 elimination procedure they used at the USGP? The table suggests a 5+3.. if it stayed 4+4, did Kvyat set a time in Q2? If Kvyat didn't set a time and it was 5+3, we ought to note this in the article. Twirlypen (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It stayed at 4+4 but Kvyat didn't go out in Q2. I've added "no time" for him in Q2 to indicate this. DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lap times

Anyone else notice that the lap times for this race were consistently and significantly quicker than the V8s of previous years? I know that the track was resurfaced and they used a softer tyre, but Nico's Q3 time was only one or two tenths off the all time lap record a decade ago when Ferrari had a 900hp V10. Twirlypen (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Brazilian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to finish this review asap. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Here are the issues I have encountered:

Lead:

Background

Practice and Qualifying

  • "Hamilton was second fastest and locked his tyres" makes it sound like one is caused by the other.
  • Third paragraph: As far as I remember, 2015 already had the rule that the Q3 drivers needed to use their tyres used in Q2. This should be clarified.
    •  Done
  • I cannot find the information about the fuel pressure in Massa's car in the source given. Also, the phrasing is weird, I have never heard the phrase "fuel pressure getting into a car".

Race

Post-race

So much from me. Thank you for your great work thus far! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I can pass this review. Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]