Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dating styles[edit]

The lead uses the American dating style with the month before the day; however, the infobox uses the European style with the day before the month. So, which do we use for consistancy's sake?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For all European races, the European style is appropriate. For other races, we should use the local style - generally also the European system. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better now!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari's 800th race[edit]

Is there a RELIABLE reference (not just what was published in the press, and not even what the Ferrari team had believed in) that would show beyond doubt this was Ferrari's 800th race? There was significant amount of disagreeing among F1 historians around the announcement that the race was Ferrari's 800th. There are counter-claims that Canadian GP was the one instead.cherkash (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the begin with there is Ferrari the Constructor, or Ferrari the Team. If we can't even define that, there is little point starting the exercise. --Falcadore (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the distinction is important. But I believe that according to neither of the two this was the 800th GP. Again, this is why my original call for reliable reference.
So would it be prudent to remove the reference in the article altogether, or to keep it with a caveat that it was widely believed to be the case, but was not?cherkash (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll be able to find a definitive statement that the race was or was not Ferrari's 800th GP (because, as Falcadore points out, it depends whether you count Ferrari cars or the Ferrari team and it also depends whether you count races like the 1982 Belgian GP where the Ferraris practised but didn't start the race and whether or not you count the 1952 Indianapolis 500, which was a WDC round but not a "Grand Prix"). I think the best we can do is a referenced statement that "Ferrari identified it as their 800th Grand Prix", which is what I have changed it to. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I sense some hint at OR here, let me make couple points. You may be right about not being able to find the definitive statement somewhere out there in order to cite it (especially since there are potentially several ways to count GP participations), but we can strive to the same standard we use in counting the number of GPs contested which are then listed in wiki's individual team articles: i.e., we are diligent in counting actual team's participations, but can't hope to find the reference after every GP contested by the team that would corroborate our counts. So gathering and properly documenting/referencing individual participations is important, but counting them and publishing the count after every GP entry is documented wouldn't be an OR.
Back to the actual subject, I think it may be easier to remove ambiguity in GP count than it seems, since Turkey-10 is claimed as the Ferrari team's 800th GP, not Ferrari cars' 800th GP, so this points to one of the most obvious ways to resolve ambiguity: no privateer Ferrari entries count (e.g., Peter Whitehead's in France-50); NART entries do count (as it was a proxy for Scuderia Ferrari, e.g. in USA-64 and Mexico-64 — these cases are not really considered controversial, although in principle a point may be raised); additionally, Indy-52 also counts, since Ascari was entered by the Ferrari team itself; DNS's (namely two races in 1982) don't count (as we only count race starts, not the appearances at race weekends, otherwise a few teams in late 1980's – early 1990's would have many more GP participations credited to them than they deserved with all those DNQ/DNPQ's).
So here's my take on compilation of the data. Out of all the 839 GPs contested by the end of 2010 season, Scuderia Ferrari missed exactly 28: UK50–FRA50–UK59–USA60–USA61–FRA62–USA62–SAF62–UK66–MEX66–SAF67–MON68–GER69–HOL73–GER73–AUT76–BEL82–SUI82, and 10 INDYs (50–51,53–60). This makes 828th World Championship race Ferrari's 800th — hence, it's Canada-10, not Turkey-10.
cherkash (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at WT:F1. DH85868993 (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race report vs qualifying result[edit]

In the race report, it says that after Hamilton lost second place to Vettel, the top 9 or 10 cars were in the same order they qualified in; however, in the previous section, it says that Vettel qualified third. So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.126.247.108 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Turkish 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 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this as part of the GAN Backlog Drive. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  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:

I have made a number of minor changes. What remains is:

Infobox

  • Have added two Citation needed templates here.
    • Removed the 30,000 attendance figures as a Google search indicates that they are from 2009 and replaced with air and track temperatures from prose. MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • You need to explain and source what the F-duct is.
  • "inconsistency and it was difficult to work" - this sentence sounds weird and should be rephrased.

Race

  • No layman will understand what is meant with "front end of the car", rephrase to make it more accessable.
  • Same applies to "into clean air".
  • "flurry" is not really an encyclopedic term.
  • Neither is "leapfrog".
  • At the end of the paragraph, you mention that Webber stays ahead of Hamilton, but forget to say that Vettel overtook Hamilton through the pitstops as well. It's in the lead, but missing here, where the info is more importannt.
  • "The latter had been backed up by his view by race engineer" - I do not really understand this sentence. Please rephrase.

Post-race

  • "Webber [...] had expected it to be honest" - ìn the press conference, he clearly says "I expected it to be an interesting race, to be honest". He does not say he expected the race to be honest, which would not have made any sense. So please rephrase this here.
  • The entire standings after the race section is far too similar to the one in the lead. I would recommend to cut down much of what is in the lead since it is a little too detailed. Also, writing that Webber extended his lead over Button is misleading, since obviously his advantage over Button was reduced, but Button moved up into second. Rephrase both in the lead and in the post-race section to reflect that.
  • The last sentence should be moved into the second paragraph of this section, where the incident is dealt with. Also, the "rivalry" between Webber and Vettel needs some context, since an uninformed reader will not know that they even had one.

Classification

  • Di Grassi's pit lane start needs to be reflected in both tables, with a note and a source. See your recently reviewed 2016 Austrian Grand Prix on how that is done.

References

That's what I found. Good work so far! I'll put the review on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, good job! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Turkish_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196575344"