2014 Brazilian 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. Review: January 13, 2018. ( Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Formula One Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Brazil Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The rules will undoubtedly be the same as last week's 18 car event. Would we agree until the FIA says otherwise? Twirlypen ( talk) 03:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Let's wait until it's announced/confirmed. It will only be a couple of days at the most. DH85868993 ( talk) 03:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/interlagos-2014-pit-entry-2.jpg shows a nice shot of the new pit entry. Provided it doesn't violate any copywrite laws, would it be suitable to use in this and/or the Interlagos article? I'm thinking a before and after shot would be helpful. Twirlypen ( talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC) reply

That is a very good photo, and would be ideal, however I can't really see a way around copyrights easily. SAS1998― Talk 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I missed the entire session completely (it's my birthday, so I've been imbibing all weekend), but did the FIA change the 4+4 elimination procedure they used at the USGP? The table suggests a 5+3.. if it stayed 4+4, did Kvyat set a time in Q2? If Kvyat didn't set a time and it was 5+3, we ought to note this in the article. Twirlypen ( talk) 02:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

It stayed at 4+4 but Kvyat didn't go out in Q2. I've added "no time" for him in Q2 to indicate this. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Anyone else notice that the lap times for this race were consistently and significantly quicker than the V8s of previous years? I know that the track was resurfaced and they used a softer tyre, but Nico's Q3 time was only one or two tenths off the all time lap record a decade ago when Ferrari had a 900hp V10. Twirlypen ( talk) 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Brazilian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase ( talk · contribs) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I will try to finish this review asap. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (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:

Here are the issues I have encountered:

Lead:

• Wikilink pole position upon first mention.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Background

• I would strongly recommend moving the information about Caterham and Manor missing the GP from the last into the first paragraph, to the information about the other constructors who are taking part.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• I think you should state the points gap between Hamilton and Rosberg before the race.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "Mercedes had so far dominated the season, with Ricciardo" - sounds like Ricciardo is part of Mercedes, a little rephrasing here would help clarify.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Vettel is missing from the drivers having achieved a second-place finish.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Fourth paragraph: Change the tense to past tense at "which has been proposed".
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Practice and Qualifying

• "Hamilton was second fastest and locked his tyres" makes it sound like one is caused by the other.
  • Reworded to make more sense. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Third paragraph: As far as I remember, 2015 already had the rule that the Q3 drivers needed to use their tyres used in Q2. This should be clarified.
  •  Done
• I cannot find the information about the fuel pressure in Massa's car in the source given. Also, the phrasing is weird, I have never heard the phrase "fuel pressure getting into a car".
  • Have sourced the claim to a article from Autosport and reworded the phrase in question. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Race

• As in earlier reviews, I again had problems sometimes finding out who is meant with pronouns. For instance, in the third paragraph, you mention Hamilton, Rosberg and Hülkenberg in one sentence and then the next begins with "He informed his team", leading me to question: Who??
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "Rosberg was protected...using DRS to protect himself" - repetition.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Fourth paragraph: add "lap" before "17".
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "The reduction of the lead was that Rosberg was aware" - I am not quite sure what this is supposed to mean?
  • The changes I have made in regards to your query should have made it somewhat clearer. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Fifth paragraph: "extending back following the", I'd change this to "extending back to the Malaysian Grand Prix"
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Sixth paragraph: "(after being delayed by slower traffic)" - again it is not immidiately clear who was delayed. Maybe switch it around, ditch the parantheses and just write: "Hamilton pushed hard following Rosberg's pit stop but was delayed by slower traffic and therefore emerged narrowly behind his teammate after making his own stop"?
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "Hamilton attacked but Rosberg" - I would rephrase: "Hamilton attacked Rosberg, who responded by...", which also resolves a repetition of "but" in the sentence.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "On lap 61, Räikkönen [...] was pressured by Button" - two sentences earlier Button was given as being behind Massa??!
  • Corrected to say Button was fifth at the time. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Post-race

• I think "domination" is too POV to use here, try to find a more encyclopedic phrase.
  • Removed. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Second paragraph: Wikilink the 2012 race.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "after the Williams had" - remove "the".
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Fourth paragraph: I'd add a comma behind "publications"? But English comma rules are still weird to me (are there even any?).
  • I've changed it to say "Rosberg was praised by the press" instead. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "to many pundits" is a bold claim if only one source follows.
  • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• "his life under rentless pressure" - I am sure that if Rosberg lived rent free in Monaco, his life would have less pressure. Relentless is probably the word you're searching for ;)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

So much from me. Thank you for your great work thus far! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• • @ Zwerg Nase: Thanks for the kind remark and again for reviewing the article. I have implemented the changes you have suggested and have made my own changes to some other parts of the article. MWright96 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Looks good, I can pass this review. Congrats! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply