# Talk:2000 German Grand Prix

If you find any reference errors, please list them here.

I would personally say that in fairness, Schumacher came across on Fisichella, and also, that Alesi was hit by Diniz, instead of crashing of his own accord. The point is that in pure fact Alesi's torrid season wasn't his own fault due to a series of takeouts and accidents, like this one. Just to consider.. : ) ALCUS36 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

"The fact that some parts of the circuit were wet whilst others were dry may have influenced the demands of F1 officials to truncate the 6.8 km circuit down to the current length of 4.57 km in 2002."
rubbish: the real reason was because the track owners wanted to offer the fans more value for money. truncating the lap meant 50% more passes through the stadium section, therefore more value for money. it was nothing to do with track conditions!
NOC  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.172.195 (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 

The drivers standing's indicate that both McLaren drivers(Mika and David) have 54 points each, that summed up is 108 points, McLaren in the constructors have only 98 points which is correct? Stony ¿ 09:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually they're both correct - McLaren were docked 10 constructors points when Häkkinen's car was found to have an FIA control seal missing from its electronic management system at the conclusion of the Austrian GP. DH85868993 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2000 German Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


### Initial thoughts
As a motorsports junkie, I'm all too familiar with this race. With it being Rubens Barrichello's first career win and the lunatic crossing the track that led to the Tikleinizing of the Hockenheimring.
Just doing a quick look at the article, I can say the chances look great.--Nascar king 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


#### Suggestions for level 4 subsections
While this wouldn't be a deal-breaker, the article could use some level 4 subsections in the race subsection. One I think would really work is one that directs people to the disgruntled Mercedes-Benz employee who ran across the track near turn 2.--Nascar king 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


### Good Article criteria point 1
Reading through the article, I found an inconsistency in spelling out numbers vs. just using numerals. The lead paragraph reads "The race, contested over 45 laps, was won by Ferrari driver Rubens Barrichello after starting from eighteenth position. Mika Häkkinen finished second for the McLaren team with team-mate David Coulthard third." As a journalist outside of Wikipedia, I've been taught that you spell out numbers between one and twelve. Anything after that is supposed to use numerals (i.e 18th). So if someone would go through the article and fix those, that would address the inconsistency problem.
In the quote box in the practice and qualifying subsection, 10 should be spelled out. Also in that section, the thumbnail reads "David Coulthard (pictured in 2009) who took pole position in his McLaren." The word who should be removed from it.
In the race subsection, the pictures and thumbnails of Rubens Barrichello and Mika Häkkinen should trade spots so it makes chronological sense.--Nascar king 15:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


### Correction
So Wikipedia has a different take on the numbers. So disregard the point I had on spelling out numbers greater than nine. Point on this withdrawn. Sorry if this caused any confusion.--Nascar king 16:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


### Grade so far
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Take care of the inconsistencies.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Assuming that GrandPrix.com is not directly connected to Formula 1, then this article does not use too many primary sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article stays on topic and addresses the man running across the track without going too into it.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It follows the neutral point of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
The edit history indicates no edit wars in the last few years.
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): 
Address the issues I pointed out with the captions.
Overall:
Pass: 
The article has some minor issues, but they're not the kind that would be considered deal breakers. So I hereby give 2000 German Grand Prix a pass. But I would like to see someone calculate the 107% time. That's hard for me to figure out, and I follow Formula 1 religiously.--Nascar king 16:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2000 German 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711102519/http://www.crash.net/f1/2000/championship/content.html to http://www.crash.net/f1/2000/championship/content.html
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)