# Talk:2011 Canadian Grand Prix

Many media reported that the race have 5 safety car periods, so 5 or 6 is the correct one? --Aleenf1 04:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether you count the SC after the restart as a different SC period than the one before the red flag. For instance Autosport counts to five. --Yaamboo (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the additions made by 81.104.175.117 (at 06:45, 13 June 2011) should be re-edited to not sound so... fan-ish :) instead of being removed, and then be added with more. There was much more in the race than what we've written so far. Any volunteers? ;o)
62.221.134.225 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They've been removed. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and we can't really have prose like that in an article. A fuller report will be written in time, sometimes it takes a few days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree :) And this is what I meant. Of course it takes time. It was really like a fairytale or s/th alike :))) 62.221.134.225 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Canadian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments

"second in a Red Bull, and Mark Webber third in the other Red Bull." maybe " with teammate Mark Webber finishing third" just to avoid the repeat of Red Bull?
 Done.
"Vettel started the race, which began behind the safety car, and held ..." this isn't clear.  All the drivers started the race...
 Rewritten.
"behind the safety car, and held the lead from Fernando Alonso, despite an early safety car deployment " confusing, two safety cars mentioned in one sentence...
 Clarified in a new sentence.
"led to the races suspension" -> "race's suspension"
 Done.
" it was restarted over two hours later with Vettel still in the lead" well presumably it was restarted with everyone in the positions they were in when it stopped? i.e. "still" isn't relevant.
 I removed it, that was indeed unnecessary.
"falling to the rear of the grid" seems odd to me to talk about "rear of the grid" many laps after the grid was relevant.
 A colloquialism, changed to last place.
"He made up positions " you mean "he overtook [a number] of drivers..."?  Need to remember this article should appeal to all, not just F1 fans.
 Changed to "he moved from twenty-first place to first". I didn't want to use overtake as it would imply he passed them all on track, rather than a mixture of passes on track, retirements and pit stops.
Link Ferrari in the lead.
 Done.
" by 24 drivers, in 12 teams of two" MOSNUM would suggest you should not mix numbers and words for comparable items, so 24 drivers, in 12 teams of 2.  That's sub-optimal as well so best if you can rephrase accordingly.
I essentially copied the phrasing from other good articles. Is "The Grand Prix was contested by twelve teams of two drivers." better?
Perhaps "twelve teams, each of two drivers" to ensure no ambiguity. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
"as Constructors, were" no need for the capital C.
 Done.
"Tyre supplier" hyphen?
I've never seen it hyphenated before in the F1 world, but I'll do it if necessary.
No, fair enough.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Not convinced image captions need to repeat first names after they've been explained in the main prose of the article.
 Agreed, removed.
"Hamilton - although" en-dash here, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.  Check others.
 Done.
"due to the small amount of time" -> "due to the limited time"
 Done.
"Vettel was leading by 0.9 seconds on the final lap" ->" Vettel led by 0.9..."
 Done.
"Jenson Button set records" no need for that first name...
 Done.
Consider giving the reader a clue what bold means (and that's sub-optimal) in the tables.  Perhaps a † would be better for everyone, with a key saying "fastest of the day" or whatever.
See below.
Check ref titles for en-dash compliance.
 Done.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


### GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
My comments above need to be addressed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Good work, enjoyable read.  I'll put it on hold for a week, hopefully you'll be able to sort the comments out and then I'll re-check and promote if appropriate.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've addressed a few easy concerns, I'll go through the rest tomorrow.
On the issue of bold in the result tables, it's standard practice to bold point scorers F1 articles without a note, including the featured ones I used as a template. If this is an issue, perhaps it should be brought up at WT:F1? QueenCake (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's okay, at least there's an accompanying points column, I guess people (like me) just guess that bold means points winners.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought there would be problems with the lead, it was awfully difficult to summarise such a complex race. I've addressed all remaining points, are there any remaining issues? QueenCake (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
All good (well, nearly!), just the reply above, and we're good to go.  Good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright then, I've changed the last sentence as you suggested, so we should be good. QueenCake (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the winning time correct? I think the maximum length of a race is around 2 hours but now the time is said to be over four hours...--EskoG-67 (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. At the time there was no length limit. When the race was suspended due to the rain the clocks were left running, so that delay counted toward the total race time. As you say, they have now changed the rules. Pyrope 14:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)