Talk:1995 European Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1995 European Grand Prix has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
June 14, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 31, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1995 European Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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); and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

It is stable.

The images are OK - though the images of Coulthard and Schumacher are not from the race, and are not strictly essential. Questionable value. Looks like they are there just to pretty up the article. Shame there are no action shots from the actual race. Has Flickr been searched?

Prose is clear and spelling accurate. There's a one paragraph sentence in the first paragraph and the lead might be a little short, and not giving enough details about the background to the drivers and constructors position in the championship.

I've not yet examined the cites, but this appears to be well sourced.

Coverage is appropriate for the topic, and appears to cover most aspects.

I'll examine more closely for neutrality - but first examination is that this is fine.

I think this will be OK. SilkTork *YES! 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Flickr doesn't have any images from the event (probably due to the fact it was 14 years ago!) hence why I've gone for those images. They're not exactly spectacular, but its something as they prefer images once at FAC!
I think the lead is fine myself, I do mention the Drivers' positions, but I don't want to go too in-depth as the lead is only like a "summary".
Thanks for the comments. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get around to making the minor adjustments myself as soon as I can. Certainly within the next 7 days. There's nothing really significant, so it's easier to just do them. SilkTork *YES! 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Just that I was hoping to take it to FAC soonish, i.e. next 4/5 days.... D.M.N. (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will get around to it, but if you want it done quicker then you could do it yourself, as it's not much that needs doing. The lead needs to be a fuller summary than it is at present. See 2008 Turkish Grand Prix and 2008 Spanish Grand Prix that I have recently passed as GA. And this sentence "The race marked the return to the Formula One calendar for the Nürburgring track after being off the calendar since the 1985 season." could be expanded to give some detail behind why Nürburgring was dropped and then returned to the circuit. And some mention of the influence of the popularity of Michael Schumacher on the decision to hold two Grands Prix in Germany might be useful if refs could be found, but is only a thought - and might be speculative (haven't looked into it myself). SilkTork *YES! 10:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I noticed was that this is a GAN Review - i.e. reviewer reviews article against the GA criteria, not for the reviewer to implement changes himself. Is there something I'm misunderstanding here - GA reviews consist of said reviewer reviewing against said criteria so it can either pass/fail against the criterion. D.M.N. (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are in deed misunderstanding something. The WP:GAN reviewer is not required to complete the review within a timescale dictated by you, inorder to meet your timetable for submitting the article to WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone started a review on the 15th I was then expecting some kind of review.... all that's happened is a few comments; no proper constructive review in the 9 days since apart from the odd comment. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One interpretation is that it is at or near GA-class and that it only needs a few "tweeks" to pass (and that is what the reviewer seems to say above); but if you are only interested in submitting to WP:FAC in 4/5 days, I suggest you go for WP:PR. I don't do FAC's, but I would suggest that whilst this might be a GA-class article, its not an FA-class article. P.S. I don't intend to do a WP:GAN on it, this is based on a one-minute scan; and you might not get a WP:PR in 4/5 days anyway.Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see this conversation is now in two places. I copy over my comments from Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Question..._.28a_bit_confused.29:

The situation is that I reviewed three F1 articles at the same time. I made similar suggestions on all three. The nominators on 2008 Turkish Grand Prix and 2008 Spanish Grand Prix carried out the suggestions and the articles were passed GA. D.M.N. decided not to make the suggested changes. As improvements on 1995 European Grand Prix were not happening I offered to do the work myself. Where I make significant changes, so much that my role as reviewer is compromised, I withdraw. As I did with Kraków. My intention on Kraków is to assist with the editing to bring it to standard, and allow it to be nominated for GA and reviewed by someone else. I would have made a judgement at the end of editing 1995 European Grand Prix if my role as reviewer would have been comprised and if so I would have withdrawn as with Kraków. I am unclear as to why D.M.N. is not assisting and working with me on this review. The work involved doesn't appear to be too much. We now have an impasse. D.M.N. is unwilling to do the work and D.M.N. doesn't want me to do the work. The nature of GANs is that sometimes they are quick and sometimes they are slow. They take the speed they need. They would, of course, move faster if suggested improvements were carried out. Suggested courses of action now are:

a) Time given for the suggested improvements to be carried out by D.M.N., or decent reasons given for unwillingness to do so. "I think the lead is fine myself" is understood. I wouldn't expect an article to be nominated for GA unless the person nominating felt it was fine. The idea of a GAN is for an independent eye to look over the article and pick out those items that a nominator may have missed.

b) The suggested improvements are carried out by myself. Judgment given after that editing to see if the amount of work has compromised my position as reviewer. It is worth noting that "Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review." I've never had a problem with assisting editors to bring an article to GA status by helping out with editing. This assistance has previously been welcomed. If in doubt, discuss, where obvious, correct.

c) Time given for the suggested improvements to be carried out by somebody else.

d) The review to be taken over by somebody else as the nominator is unwilling to work with me.

e) The GAN to be failed as the article doesn't meet GA criteria and no improvements are being made to bring it to standard.

I'll accept any of the above. Or a new solution. SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - hopefully this is OK. D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is working. As nobody has stepped forward to to take over, and as no real progress is being made on the issues I raised, and the nominator has made it clear that he feels uncomfortable with me doing the work myself, I will close this as a fail. The nominator will then be free to relist it, or call for a GAR. Given that the nominator is keen for speed, a relisting may produce a faster result as a GAR can drag on.

1a The prose is clear, however there is a single sentence paragraph in the first section. 1b The lead fails per Wikipedia:Lead section - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Look at the contents of the article and ensure that a brief summary of the major sections are included in the lead. Example - details from the background section and the practise session could be brought into the lead.

2. Article is sourced.

3 More coverage on selection of the Nürburgring track would be useful. This sentence: "The race marked the return to the Formula One calendar for the Nürburgring track after being off the calendar since the 1985 season." raises more questions than it answers. Fail for not addressing the main aspects of the topic. The track is a main aspect.

4 Article is neutral.

5 Article is stable.

6 Images are questionable as they are not of the event. However, they are captioned so as not to confuse the reader. Not a fail, but a discussion point.

1995 European Grand Prix has not met the criteria for GA. SilkTork *YES! 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that these are small issues that could be fixed with less than an hour's work. If I hadn't been so busy at the moment with a range of other Wiki issues I would have done it myself. I suggest that D.M.N. attends to the suggestions and relists. SilkTork *YES! 10:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite frankly pissed off that the article has been failed. The event is in 1995 there is nothing at all I can do if there are no free-use images available - this has NEVER been an issue on current FA's 1995 Pacific Grand Prix and 1995 Japanese Grand Prix so why an issue now? I've added a little bit on the Nurburgring - but the main body of info regarding that issue does not belong in this article; this article concentrates on the race weekend; it doesn't really concentrate on the past history. The lead DOES have an overview of the weekend - it doesn't need to contain practice details they in the greater scheme of things are not important and thus are not in the lead. I'm shocked this article has been failed. D.M.N. (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Regarding the lack of freely-licensed images, would it be preferable to use fair use images? I could always scan and upload some from the two annuals I have.--Midgrid(talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I haven't inserted fair use images is because of comments at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix - where Fair Use images were rejected as "it's presence does not significantly increase my understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding"; I think a Fair Use image here would not increase the understanding, thus a free use image is prefered. This had never been a problem in any of the other articles (Pacific and Japan got through with free images) - its generally known that if free-use images of the event are not available then use general-free use images. D.M.N. (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. It's just that 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, 1994 Australian Grand Prix, 1997 European Grand Prix and 2007 Canadian Grand Prix contain FU images of extremely important events (Senna's crash, Schumacher-Hill collision, Schumacher-Villeneuve collision and Kubica's crash respectively). I wonder if any events in the 1995 season would meet these criteria?--Midgrid(talk) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Schumacher/Hill from Britain and Italy, but apart from that probably none others. D.M.N. (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image situation is fine as is, and I think you'd have trouble justifying the inclusion of a fair use image. Apterygial 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apterygial[edit]

As promised, here are my impressions looking over the article. Note that the majority of these comments are points I think could be a problem at FAC, not necessarily problems I had reading the article.

Lead
  • He then spun off the track on lap 58 when running in fourth position, retiring from the race in the process. Minor point, but when I read this I imagined him retiring at the same time his car was spinning off the track, while in reality he would have retired after. How about He then spun off the track on lap 58 when running in fourth position, leading to his retirement.?
  • The points situation given in the lead seems fine to me, I don't know if that's because you added some info after the GAN.
    • The only bit I added was about the Constructors' title after the GAN. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally pipe points to List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems.
    • I'm not sure why I really need to, its not like the points system is overly complicated to understand and doesn't add anything to it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's useful if you want to know how the points were handed out, that's all. It's not earth shatteringly useful, I'll admit, but useful nonetheless. Apterygial 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link pit stop here once and once in the body.
    • Done. But I've kept it lined twice in the body is because I've linked it when I say "pit lane" as there is no such are on pit lane. (unless that link magically turns blue soon!) ;) D.M.N. (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • I'm wondering, if we say Drivers' Championship and Constructors' Championship, should we say World Championship instead of world championship?
    • It probably should be capitals. Changed. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabriele Tarquini replaced Ukyo Katayama at Tyrrell; the Japanese driver... I got a couple of comments at 2008 Japanese Grand Prix's FAC about refering to drivers by nationality. Try Gabriele Tarquini replaced Ukyo Katayama at Tyrrell; the latter driver...
    • Removed "Japanese driver", simply added "latter". D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...leaving Mark Blundell without a drive for 1996. How about without a contract?
P+Q
  • The drivers, of whom only Berger and Brundle had raced at Nürburgring in an F1 car before. Maybe instead of F1 car have Formula One car.
  • Schumacher described it as "dull" and "easy to learn, with no real challenges" and Coulthard predicted a processional race without much overtaking. Looking forward to this year's GP? ;)
    • Not really. (unless Ferrari win). D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both sessions lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes with weather conditions dry in the first session; but wet for the second session. That semi-colon should be a comma, I think.
  • ...the Portuguese Grand Prix. Overlink, same with McLaren and Mika Häkkinen in the next sentence.
    • Fixed. I've actually just changed that as Hakkinen is introduced earlier, so the 1st name is unnecessary. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...both three and a half seconds off the pace. This could be construed as a quaint motorsport way of saying ...both three and a half seconds off Hill's fastest lap. I'd recommend changing it.
    • changed to "both three and a half seconds off the fastest lap time". D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The time he set in the second part of qualifying was still slower than Coulthard and Hill's time set in the first part, and thus he was third quickest overall. Someone less F1 literate than me might disagree, but I find this sentence fairly redundant. You've already explained the regs, so it should be clear from that and the previous sentence why he was only third. Maybe that's just me.
    • I'd rather keep this in to make it 100% ambiguous and so no one is left confused. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the home ground of McLaren's engine supplier, Mercedes, the team opted to amalgamate the "B" and "C" versions of its troublesome MP4/10 chassis, with a rear end and gearbox from the former, but Häkkinen and Blundell could only qualify in ninth and tenth places respectively. Do you feel the first part of this sentence would be better in background? Presumably they used the same amalgamation in practice as well.
    • I think so. I've decided to put that bit, plus the bit about the FW17 into the background section. I'll see if the magazines/annuals Midgrid (talk · contribs) has have any more bits on upgrades. (thanks Midgrid!) D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarquini qualified in nineteenth position, four places behind team-mate Salo, but admitted to feeling rusty by F1 standards. Why not say Formula One?
    • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, got a better word than rusty?
        • "uncomfortable" maybe? D.M.N. (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Rusty" is the precise word used by Autocourse, but perhaps "out-of-practice" would be better?--Midgrid(talk) 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Autocourse can get away with more editorialising than we can. "out-of-practice" seems fine. Apterygial 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only the latter able to challenge Schumacher for the championship, the question of Williams team orders was raised. There's that Championship problem again.
    • I really don't think it needs to be capitalled here as we are not making it "part of a championship name term" like "World, Drivers' and Constructors' Championship". I don't think it needs to be capitalized. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Race
  • The track surface for the race start was initially damp, but dried up as it progressed. Maybe The track surface for the start was damp, but dried up as the race progressed.
  • Several drivers went off during the session due to the wet track conditions. Off the track?
    • Changed. Also removed the second "track" after "wet" as it would be redundant. D.M.N. (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Williams opted to race its FW17B chassis for the first time, as it had proved so effective during qualifying for this and the previous Grand Prix. The last part of this sentence is clumsy and needs revising. Maybe ...as it had proved effective during qualifying and the previous Grand Prix.
    • I've removed this sentence entirely due to an addition I've made in the background. D.M.N. (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The race was scheduled to start at 14:00 CEST, but Papis stalled his Footwork car in the starting lights procedure, resulting in the start being aborted with a new start time of 14:05 CEST. Fairly irrelevant point for my own self-indulgence: really? That results in a race start delay?
    • Yes? Again, I'd prefer it 100% ambiguous so the layman would be able to understand it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't suggesting you remove it, but I was a little surprised it happened. Apterygial 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hill, who started alongside Coulthard, had a bad start and was overtaken by Schumacher in the rundown to the first corner. Should be run down.
  • both were given ten-second stop-and-go penalty in the early stages of the race for these misdemeanours. Should be penalties.
  • Keep in mind that according to WP:MOSNUM, numbers lower than 10 should be spelt out, and greater than 10 in numerals.
  • Berger and the McLarens moved back up the leading order as drivers made a pit stop for slick tyres.
  • Mark Blundell, commenting on his McLaren race. Hmmm. He's either commenting on his McLaren or his race, but not his McLaren race.
  • re-overtook would be better as re-passed.
  • I'd pipe stint to the terminology page.
  • ...and link fastest lap to Fastest lap.
  • ...overtaking the Frenchman on the outside of the chicane on lap 65. Same nationality issue as earlier with Katayama.
  • Hill, spectating from the side of the track, applauded Schumacher's win; the German attempted to stop his car to give his rival a lift back to the pits, but was unable to due to a slipping clutch. I reckon spectating should be watching. On a related note, do you reckon Schumacher would even try to give Hill a lift now?
    • Fixed. Yeah, he probably would they have kissed and made up since back then! ;) D.M.N. (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not super keen on the term sandwiched in an encyclopedia.
Post-race
  • In Schumacher's box-quote, I think you should have it For me, it is fantastic to win the German Grand Prix, the Belgian Grand Prix and the Monaco Grand Prix [this year] as well as this race in Germany. Just for clarity's sake.
  • The race result entailed that he needed only three more points from the three remaining races of the season to win the Drivers' Championship whilst Hill would have to win all three anyway to maintain his challenge, effectively meaning that the championship was over. This sentence needs some work. Something like: Schumacher's win meant he needed only three more points from the remaining races of the season to win the Drivers' Championship, whilst Hill would have to win all three Grands Prix, effectively meaning that the Championship was over.
  • I can't help but feel that the overlap here with Brundle's comment (in one of the other 1995 GP articles) is a bit out of place in this article, looking forward while Post-race should be looking back.
    • Hmm, possibly. I think it is relevant though to the post-race section, I'm not too keen on removing it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's your call. What do you think, Midgrid? Apterygial 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alesi, despite his performance in the early stages of the race, was also criticised by some for losing the lead in the final few laps after letting Schumacher gain time on him during the latter's final stint. How about Alesi, despite his performance in the early stages of the race, was also criticised by some for losing his lead after letting Schumacher gain time on him in the final laps.?
  • What exactly is the IOC?
    • International Olympic Committee. Linked. D.M.N. (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that all helps. Apterygial 13:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.pacificgrandprix.com/results/preur3.html
    • In 1995 European Grand Prix on 2011-05-25 06:15:19, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 1995 European Grand Prix on 2011-06-08 03:06:06, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced. DH85868993 (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1995 European Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1995 European Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1995 European Grand Prix/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Infobox[edit]

  • Rain, later dried out, air temperature 11C (51F) - Is it possible to use {{convert}} so the ° symbol shows up?

Prose, POV, and coverage[edit]

Lead

  • Damon Hill, Coulthard's teammate, started the race in second, but dropped down to third behind Schumacher at the start - "at the start" sounds out of place here (in my opinion) since the word "start" is repeated at the beginning of the sentence, even though these refer to two different things. How about "in the opening lap"?

Background

  • a late replacement for the cancelled Argentine Grand Prix. - is this relevant to the article?
    • It's more that the race isn't in the same location as it was the previous year (Germany rather than Spain), and why it was held in Spain the previous year. It also changed from being a race towards the start of the season, to near the end. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Japanese driver choosing not to race on doctors' advice - it's not as obvious that Katayama is Japanese. Well, many people can tell by the last name, but I'd suggest saying "the latter" instead of "the Japanese driver".

Practice and qualifying

  • The drivers, of whom only Berger and Brundle had raced at Nürburgring in a Formula One car before, were uninspired by the circuit - this reads a bit awkwardly.
    • The bit about two drivers having driven it before is an aside, and I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two practice sessions were held before the race; the first was held on Friday morning and the second on Saturday morning - I would also condense this, e.g. "Two practice sessions were held before the race: on Friday morning and on Saturday morning." Since there are only two, I assume "the first" and "the second" can be dropped.
  • As Hill was mathematically the only possible contender to challenge Schumacher for the championship, the question of if Williams should use team orders. - This looks like a run-on sentence. I don't quite understand what the last part of the sentence is trying to say.
    • I've expanded this, it's more that, if one of your drivers can win the championship, should you slow the other one down, to allow them to have the best chance to win. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race

  • Alesi held position to finish second in his Ferrari, with Coulthard third - 35 seconds behind. - change the hyphen to an en-dash for consistency

Post-race

  • Journalist Alan Henry described the race as the best of the season to date,[8] and even of recent memory - I'd add a comma after "recent memory".
  • [14][9], [9][1], etc - I would recommend rearranging these reference numbers, but this is optional.
  • in which pundits felt that he had not been "forceful" enough in his battle with Schumacher - any pundits in particular?
  • was also criticised by some - I'd remove "by some", since it's basically fluff - the sentence makes clear that he was criticised.


Fantastic review as always epicgenius, let me know if there is any more I need to look at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: No problem. There's just a few things with the references to smooth out. epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • I wonder if it's possible to combine the various refs to the following, with either {{rp}} or shortened footnotes:
    • Henry, Alan (December 1995) [1995]. "1995 Grands Prix: Grand Prix of Europe". - refs 1, 8, 9, 14, 25
    • Domenjoz, Luc (1995). "The 17 Grand Prix - Grand Prix of Europe". - refs 3, 19, 30
    • Henry, Alan (December 1995) [1995]. "1995 Grands Prix: Portuguese Grand Prix". - refs 5 and 7
    • Henry, Alan (December 1995) [1995]. "1995 Grands Prix: Pacific Grand Prix". - refs 43 and 45
      • Done. I'm not super familiar with this, but the Henry sources are all from the same book, just different chapters. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37, "FIA Formula 1 World Championship – 1995 Season Review", has an error message |access-date= requires |url=.
  • Ref 39, ""Grand Prix Mechanics Charitable Trust - The Trust in Action", is missing a publisher or website.
  • In general, I would either link authors only on the first reference where they're mentioned, or link authors every reference they're mentioned.
  • Spotchecks came up good.

Images and copyright[edit]

  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • Copyright checks did not bring up any issues.

General comments[edit]

  • I took a look at Talk:1995 European Grand Prix/GA1, and I feel the comments there are stale due to the recent improvements to this page. So, for the purpose of this review, I didn't take these comments into account. The article is evidently in much better shape than back in 2009.
  •  On hold epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1995_European_Grand_Prix&oldid=1212539257"