Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 Monte Carlo Rally/archive1

2007 Monte Carlo Rally

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has just passed its Good article nomination and I want to know what should be done before nominating it at WP:FAC. It's the first GA for a World Rally championship race so the WikiProject doesn't have any other race reports to compare to, although I based the format on Featured Formula 1 race reports.

At this point I'm mostly concerned whether the article is too long and too wordy, and whether any technical and official terminology is unclear, but any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

Define Rally: Most readers will have no idea what a rally race is. Must give a brief defnition somewhere, maybe not in lead, but immed after lead. Also, rallys come in various flavors, right? Speed and "how close to target time". What flavor was this race?
Explain: ", but on Stage 6, Loeb extended his lead from 6.6 seconds to nearly 24 seconds, ..." - Does that mean he was driving faster or that he was hitting the target times more precisely?
Wording: " and from thereon became unattainable." - unattainable is not right. Maybe "impossible to catch" or similar?
Clarify: "Controversially, the 2007 Monte Carlo Rally was no longer based in Monaco and localities nearby, where it had been held in recent years..." - but the race is 75 years old. Exactly when did it leave MC? Only in 2007?
Wording: "after taking a six-week break" - better as "after a six-week break" since the race itself did not take the break.
Wording: "he should definitely have sat out the Monte Carlo Rally. " - Is this advice given before or after the race? If before, it should be "he should sit out the Monte Carlo Rally. "
Too dramatic: ""It has been okay in testing but what about the long stages?" he asked. His answer: "I don't know."" - reword to more detached & encyclopedic.
Reword: "Controversially, the 2007 Monte Carlo Rally was no longer based in Monaco .." - Controversially is an adverb that should be adjacent to a verb. Better to rewrite the sentence in plainer terms. Maybe: "After 75 years of being based in or near Monaco, the race organizers located the race in ABC, giving rise to controversy because ...."
Wording: ". After conducting the entire race in France the organisers only paid lip service to the principality ..." - "lip service" is a bit too informal. Use more encylopedic words such as "made an effort to include Monaco, the race's namesake, by holding a stage .." or similar.
Reword: " his brother Petter had a similar problem in the same corner, but his quick reactions were able to control the car so he just drove into the scrub and got back on track. " - two issues: (1) "quick reactions" is a bit too WP:PEACOCK, needs to be more detached; (2) "just drove into" is too informal. Write ".. his brother Petter had a similar problem in the same corner, but was able to get back on the road after driving into the scrub." Just state plain facts.
Good job on the road map illustration ... looks like it was a tough one to create.
Link or define: "Privateers François Duval driving a" - Need to link or define Privateer.
Explain: "The drivers hoped that with the rally taking place on higher altitudes, wintery conditions and burle (a freezing wind blowing from the north) would produce ice and snow on the ground, making for a more exciting event;" - Could you elaborate a bit more ... that seems to be wishing for dangerous conditions. Why? To increase crowd interest?
Clarify: "It was also badly located and poorly run,[9] and WRC's commercial director David Richards said that the service area was "like a car boot sale"" - Two issues: (1) what was badly located? The entire race? or just the service area? (2) Cannot say "it was bad" or poor in WPs own voice, those sort of judgements need to be attributed to a source. E.g. "Driver ABC said 'the race was poorly ...' "
Explain: " the fifteen stages totalled 328.54 competitive km (204.15 mi), which was shorter than the FIA's regulatory minimum of 360 km (220 mi) for Special Stages" - Why was the race permitted to be shorter than required?
Judgement? - "But Latvala pushed too hard and when he drove over some loose gravel .." - Again, "pushed too hard" is statement of opinion, not fact, and cant be in the article. If a source (e.g. driver or commentator) said it, okay, but then the source needs to be named.
Define: "have only two passes on the recce, " - what is a recce?
Punctuation: "We'll see how Chris drives and hope for the best.". - Shouldn't have 2 periods at end. Just the one inside the quote is sufficient.
Footnote order: " and set a time of 12m 42s.[7][3]" - Not a big deal, but at FAC they'll probably require that the sequence be flipped so it appears [3][7]. Same issue in a few other places.
Pics: A couple of more pics would be nice, maybe one of victor Sébastien Loeb?
Explain: "..to test the new compounds." - should explain "compounds" ; maybe say "tire compounds" or "tire composition"?
Specific? : "The 2007 event also marked the return of the nighttime stages." - WOuld it be better to say " the return of nighttime stages."? the word "the" means there are some specific stages being discussed.
External links: the external links tool [1] shows 7 links that are 403 status: probably dead. Validate those and update if needed.
Clarify: "Over a total distance of 1,185.22 kilometres (736.46 miles), the fifteen stages totalled 328.54 competitive km (204.15 mi)," - Explain the difference between the total distance (1185) and the "totalled" (328) ... why are those numbers different?
I don't see any mention of TV coverage. Was there any live coverage? By who?
Also: press coverage? Spectators? Any detail about fans: where were they located? Which stages had most fans?
In general, it would be nice if there was some more info about things other than the racers/cars: did anyone in the non-racing world comment on the race? Celebrities? Mayors of the towns the race when through? Politicians from Monaco that were upset? Sponsors of the race?
Wording: "were either very similar to, or came from, the Xsara," - better as "were similar or identical to those of the Xsara,"
Wording: "they were hoping that Petter Solberg and Chris Atkinson could just earn" - Try "they were hoping that Petter Solberg and Chris Atkinson would earn "
Clarify: "Leg 3 began early Saturday morning.... Stage 9 was the first of the day, .." - What is the difference between a Leg and Stage? Define those terms the first time they are used in the article.
Define: "After the midday service, the next three stages .." - Did they stop for a catholic mass?
Wording: " and was the first fastest non-Citroën driver" - Eliminate "first"
Alternate text for pics: Some FAC reviewers will expect "alt" text for the pics. That is text for seeing-impaired readers. See WP:ALT. Cick on the "alt text" link in upper right corner of this PR page to see. To add alt text for a pic, just use the "alt" keyword in the picture line.
You ask the question: "At this point I'm mostly concerned whether the article is too long and too wordy, and whether any technical and official terminology is unclear, but any suggestions would be appreciated." - Regarding the technical terminology: yes some is unclear, and I've enumerated the issues above. Regarding "long and wordy" - FA doesnt mind long article, in fact detail and completeness are required. Is it too detailed? Not in my opinion, but there is a spectrum of views on that, and you should be prepared for a reviewer at FAC to complain that it is too detailed and has too many quotes. But I doubt that would be a reason for it to fail at FAC.
Overall it is a fine article. It is on a very narrow, focused topic, so it is not grand and sweeping, but FA doesnt care about that. My recommendation is to implement the above suggestions, then do one more PR (you have to wait 14 days between PRs); then go to FAC. The reason for one more PR is that the article's prose needs to be top-notch, and Im not great at prose, so maybe a second PR reviewer would catch some more issues.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]