Talk:Fernando Alonso/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 13:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Did you also review the page Motor racing career of Fernando Alonso? That page contains, what you called "controversial issues" with much more details about for example the espionage scandal and the Honda board radio's. That page is created with information that was originally on this main page. Also on this page under "Image and impact" his nature is described.Lobo151 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No, because the GA nomination is about this article. It's a stunning omission to not adequately summarise "spygate" and the events in Hungary in this article. And the "image and impact" section (in my opinion) doesn't go into sufficient detail on the reputation he has of being 'prickly'. Happy to debate this second point however (and contribute to researching this). Mark83 (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I don't believe that even that article adequately covers Alonso's impact on the Honda relationship. "Radio complaints" are mentioned, but it's more significant than that, e.g. "Relations between the team and Honda have been strained ever since the under-developed power unit's woeful performance throughout 2015, when Alonso deliberately called it a "GP2 engine" over the radio in Honda's home race." [Tremayne, David (28 May, 2017). Button's dream F1 return turns to nightmare. The Independent] Mark83 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand the point about the espionage scandal. But the events of the Hugarian are mentioned. What more detailes are needed? and the flare-up during qualifying for the Hungarian Grand Prix when Hamilton disobeyed a team instruction, thus disadvantaging Alonso, and Alonso responded by delaying Hamilton in the pit lane. That is what happened, what more need to be added to it?Lobo151 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This article from Andrew Benson (BBC) provides a good summary of Alonso's actions at that Grand Prix. It's a long and complex article, but our article does not adquately summarise some crucial events, e.g. threatening his team boss and insisting that McLaren make Hamilton run out of fuel in the race. Mark83 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The main rationale for the fail. A lot of issues - grammar mistakes and prose not clear. Examples: In lead "having also driven for McLaren, Ferrari, and Minardi" makes it sound like he drove for these teams before being WDC, when of course it was after. "He is the son of the mine shaft explosives factory mechanic and amateur kart driver " -- is an awkward way of introducing his father. Same for his mother. Karts' pedals > kart's pedals drive-ability > drivability "Alonso devised three timing sectors going to school to improve himself daily." - will non-racing fans understand "timing sectors". And I know the point we are trying to make here, but it's not clear. "she also ensured Alonso was academically well off" - I assume these means well-educated? Needs to be clarfiied. "Marcó found personal and sponsorship money" -- you don't "find" personal money. "Marcó taught Alonso to be conservative" -- needs to be clarified. "For 2000, he progressed" > In 2000.... "and scored no points for 23rd overall" -- I understand what that means, but still a bit clumbsy. "due to regulation changes mandating teams not to change tyres" - Clumbsy "He signed a contract extension with Renault for 2006 in April 2005" - better as "In April 2005, he signed..." "Bookmakers installed Alonso as the favourite to retain the Drivers' Championship." -- "installed" a strange word choice, and I'm more interested in what F1 experts think. "An Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA; F1's governing body)-imposed ban" -- awkward language. "Alonso eschewed an aerodynamic front wing mandated in an attempt to make overtaking more possible" ???? This is only a review of the early parts of the article. The whole article needs a review and prose tidy-up.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead doesn't adequately summarise the article. "Flare up" not appropriate language. Please review if further reading items are appropriate. From MOS: "Further reading"; [needs to] be highly selective, as Wikipedia is not a bibliographic directory"
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Not fully reviewed due to the improvements required on the other criteria. However one stand-out issue for me is ref 115 (covering "Alonso is often regarded as one of the greatest F1 drivers in the history of the sport"). References shouldn't be bundled in this way (i.e. 7 references in a single inline citation). In fact it does a diservice to the hard work put into referencing. The text itself is a very big statement, and whilst I know this is an accurate statement, my initial reaction was that 1 reference is insufficient. I can see that's not the case, it's well referenced. However pick the best 3 or 4 references, and have that number of inline citations. Apologies, I stand corrected per Wikipedia:CITEBUNDLE. Mark83 (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Not reviewed due to the improvements required on the other criteria.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not exactly OR, but "He and McLaren team owner Ron Dennis" is just incorrect. Part owner. Does a company contracting with his team automatically mean they "do business" with the driver? For example we don't know for a fact the commercial terms of Alonso appearing in an ING commerical. It's just as likely that this is sponsor relations work that was written into his Renault contract than a "new" commercial relationship between ING and Alonso. Not fully reviewed due to the improvements required on the other criteria.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, no concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Summary style is important, but in this case the fact that Alonso's role in the espionage scandal and the related furore Hungarian Grand Prix are not covered in detail means this article is not covering one of the main aspects of the topic. These were seismic events in F1 and Alonso played a major part, therefore a lot more detail is required. McLaren were excluded from the WCC and fined $100m! Alonso wasn't to blame, but he was a major actor in this. The Honda "GP2 engine" controversy not mentioned. This occured in 2015, and was still being mentioned by F1 commentators during the 2021 season. This article seems to echo the McLaren narrative that their mid 2010s poor performance was mainly the engine. Respected commentators have concluded that it was also a terrible chassis/car. I think we need to review this section to ensure we are explaining all of the issues here. Alonso has a reputation as being 'prickly' within teams. I think this should be explored (of course with appropirate references)? The word "toxic" has been used by reliable sources to describe him. We need to throughly research and present this in a balanced way, but it can't be ignored. (examples [1] [2]) Although the autosport article is talking about F1 more generally.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nothing covered in too much detail. Quite the reverse (see 3a).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	On the fence on this one. I think the omissions about Alonso's 'prickly' nature and his role in the espionage scandal/Hungarian Grand Prix are (inadvertently) glossing over important issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Not reviewed due to the improvements required on the other criteria.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Not reviewed due to the improvements required on the other criteria.
	7. Overall assessment.	Major review and improvement of prose required. Along with inclusion of the more controversial issues/events in Alonso's F1 career. However this is a strong article and these fixes are achievable to raise it to GA standard. For the prose issue, consider asking for assistance as I know how it can be difficult to review this sometimes when you are so close to the content.