Talk:Forti/Archive 2

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "A combination of an inexperienced team and an untested car was not a suitable platform for any success, and so Forti did not score any points in its first F3000 year." (Formula 3000) Editorializing a bit. Can this be reworded?
   There is a lot of repetition of the word "the team..." It might help to use the Forti name more often, especially where you've used "the team" both at the start and the middle of a paragraph.
   "Indeed, this was Forti's most successful season in F3000, with Naspetti a strong contender for the championship (which was won by Christian Fittipaldi)." - "Indeed" is unnecessary. How was Naspetti a strong contender? Citation?
   "But conversely, Eddie Jordan had shown that the move could be made successfully, with an impressive performance in 1991 with his Jordan team." (Formula One) How was Jordan's performance impressive?
   "The only attractive thing about the car was its blue and yellow colour scheme accompanied by fluorescent green wheel-rims, illustrating the team's Brazilian influence in its first year. (FG01) Editorializing again. This seems to be your assessment rather than what the citation indicates.
   I'm reading a lot of peackock terms, i.e.: "its weight was reduced by a significant 60 kilograms"
   "In 1995, a seventh place finish did not secure any points, but under the current points system (as used since 2003), this would have seen Forti score two points." I don't see the relevance of this statement.
   "Despite this loss, the team got on with the business of racing" Seems rather jargony to me. Reword?
   "Badoer, however, made a mark in Argentina for all the wrong reasons." Editorializing again.
   "Ironically, Guido Forti had signed the 1997 Concorde Agreement shortly before his team's demise..." That isnt really ironic, simply coincidental.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I am concerned about the driverdb.com references, as it appears that website relies on user generated content. If so, it is invalid as a reliable source.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It is generally a well written article, and extremely detailed. I do see a lot of editorializing which needs to be cleaned up. A peer review might help. I also need convincing on the reliability of driverdb.com. Please let me know when you feel you have addressed my concerns, and I will be happy to take a second look. Cheers! Resolute 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I have adjusted the prose/MoS failings you mentioned as follows:

• "A combination of an inexperienced team and an untested car was not a suitable platform for any success, and so Forti did not score any points in its first F3000 year." (Formula 3000) Editorializing a bit. Can this be reworded?
  • I've reworded it to a more quantifiable "This combination of an inexperienced team and an untested car did not score any points in its first F3000 year".
• There is a lot of repetition of the word "the team..." It might help to use the Forti name more often, especially where you've used "the team" both at the start and the middle of a paragraph.
  • I've gone through the article, attempting to reduced the number of "the team"s present. Here is the diff.
• "Indeed, this was Forti's most successful season in F3000, with Naspetti a strong contender for the championship (which was won by Christian Fittipaldi)." - "Indeed" is unnecessary. How was Naspetti a strong contender? Citation?
  • I've removed the "indeed" and quantified it by stating that he finished third in the championship points, ten points behind the champion. The citation for this is in the F3000 results table - I can duplicate it to cover this sentence if necessary.
• "But conversely, Eddie Jordan had shown that the move could be made successfully, with an impressive performance in 1991 with his Jordan team." (Formula One) How was Jordan's performance impressive?
  • More quantification here - I've added that Jordan finished fifth in the Constructors' Championship that year with seven points finishes. I can find a reference for this being an impressive performance by the usual standards of F1 rookie teams if need be.
• "The only attractive thing about the car was its blue and yellow colour scheme accompanied by fluorescent green wheel-rims, illustrating the team's Brazilian influence in its first year. (FG01) Editorializing again. This seems to be your assessment rather than what the citation indicates.
  • I've reworded it to "The car was liveried in a blue-and-yellow colour scheme...".
• I'm reading a lot of peackock terms, i.e.: "its weight was reduced by a significant 60 kilograms"
  • It was significant because it made the original weight of the car about 10% heavier than the ideal (as close as possible to the minimum weight limit), which equates to performance on the track. I've added a reference for the minimum weight limit. You suggest that there are more peacock terms - I've reworded some other parts of the article, but please point out others that you notice.
• "In 1995, a seventh place finish did not secure any points, but under the current points system (as used since 2003), this would have seen Forti score two points." I don't see the relevance of this statement.
  • I've reworded it to the simpler and more relevant "This was only one position behind the points-scoring placings".
• "Despite this loss, the team got on with the business of racing" Seems rather jargony to me. Reword?
  • I've reworded it to "Nevertheless, Forti remained in the sport for the 1996 season".
• "Badoer, however, made a mark in Argentina for all the wrong reasons." Editorializing again.
  • I've reworded it to "Badoer, however, attracted attention in Argentina for a different reason".
• "Ironically, Guido Forti had signed the 1997 Concorde Agreement shortly before his team's demise..." That isnt really ironic, simply coincidental.
  • I've changed it accordingly.

As for driverdb, all I can say about it is that whenever I've cross-checked it with definitely reliable results in motorsport books, it's always been just as accurate. Unfortunately, my home library only includes F1 and International F3000 results, so Italian F3, European F3 and other F3 races aren't covered. I expect that I would need Italian sources or contemporary motorsport magazines from twenty years ago, both of which are almost impossible to get. It would be a shame to lose the table, as it's nearly complete, but I suppose I can transfer the notable victories covered by other references that are not currently mentioned in the article text, remove it and perhaps store it somewhere in case I ever do come into possession of better sources.

I hope that this has resolved some of the problems with the article.--Diniz(talk) 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just had an idea - would it be advisable to have a reduced table solely based on championship and race wins, which I could fully reference from reliable sources? I found a very comprehensive motorsports statistical compendium in a charity shop today, which should make it easier.--Diniz(talk) 19:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would think so. You could move the charts based on the driverdb site to a separate article and link to it, if you wish to keep the data. Resolute

That's a good idea! I shall make a reduced, fully-sourced table for the main article and have a {{main}} link to the full table.--Diniz(talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Now completed.--Diniz(talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've been swamped at work the past couple days. I'll take another look tomorrow. Resolute 02:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

After a second look, you have addressed all of my concerns. I am now happy to pass this as a GA. Resolute 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks for the review!--Diniz(talk) 16:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)