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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Grabbing this for a review over the weekend. Miyagawa (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, let's get the review started.

• No DAB links.
• External links all check out.
• Per MOS:DUPLINK, there are additional links for Kimi Räikkönen, Ferrari and Force India under Free Practice which need to be removed. Also Fernando Alonso and Sauber in Qualifying, Felipe Nasr and Sebastian Vettel in Race. Last one is Renault in the last sentence of Post-race. Linking in the tables are all fine per the MOS.

 Done

• Background: Might be worth specifying that Hamilton is a Mercedes driver on his first appearance. I'll leave it up to you how, as there's a few options. It'll make it clearer immediately about which team is leading and then make it apparent that the team is winning both the drivers and team championships.

 Done

• Free practice: The information in the image caption about Martini racing needs to be cited. It'd be better in the text of the article somewhere and then repeated in the image caption. You can also drop any links in the image captions (throughout the article, not for this one image) if you've already linked the respected article elsewhere. For example in this case, you don't need to link Williams.

I was unable to find sources from 2015, but I added two from 2014 describing the need for the livery change. I know it is not ideal, but it should suffice? As for the links: As per MOS:LINK, a duplicate link can be included in image captions. They are also not highlighted with the DupLink-Tool. I like to keep them in, since I consider the rule to link something just once not to be very helpful to readers. Therefore, I tend to include them whereever they are allowed.

• In the first sentence you reference the Friday/Saturday - that's fine as that's the standard weekend layout for F1 but you haven't yet mentioned in the article text the date that the race was scheduled for. So it'd be worth while giving the date for the Friday and Saturday in question when you mention them for the first time - I don't think you need to include 2015 in it as that'll be inherent from the article title.

 Done

• Qualifying: It wasn't immediately obvious that Manor Marussias was a racing team - so worth saying "Both Manor Marussias drivers..." instead but keep the link.

 Done

• Citations: What makes F1Fantatic reliable? Same goes for Crash.net and GPUpdate.net.

F1Fanatic has been questioned several times over the past year's GA reviews. It has always been accepted as a reliable source in the end and is widely used in the WikiProject. I try to use it as little as possible, but several pieces of information, such as reports on how the first two parts of qualifying unfolded and certain interesting statistics are often not covered in other sources, so the site has proven very valuable. As for the other two, they are included since they are often included in articles concerning Formula 1, so I went by convention. Unfortunately, the WikiProject does not have a list of reliable sources such as other Projects. I will try to get that started to avoid further confusion here. I will leave it to you if you agree with my and the other editor's assessement of these pages as reliable sources.

• @Zwerg Nase: Once you've had a chance to look at that, ping me and I'll come back. Miyagawa (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: Thank you very much for your review! Find my replies above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, happy to promote! Miyagawa (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]