# Talk:2022 Bahrain Grand Prix

The current race recap appears to copy a lot of text from the F1 recap. I'm rewriting it to use original wording. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Tyre choices" section could be improved because to non-F1 fans, as written it's meaningless.  By clarifying that, for an F1 season, the options available are C1, C2, C3, C4 & C5.  C1 would always be the "hard" tyre but C2 or C3 could be designated as the "hard" tyre for a race as well.  This week (Jeddah), C2 is the hard tyre, thus C3 is the medium & C4 is the soft.  And next race C3 could be designated as the hard tyre, so C4 would be the medium & C5 would be the soft.  So in 3 consecutive races C3 could be either the hard, medium or soft tyre (depending on Pirelli's decision after studying the track, temperature, etc). 2601:645:C200:ACA0:48FB:9438:9142:F3AC (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Such an in-depth explanation would be WP:UNDUE here. We are aware this section is jargon heavy, but it is very difficult to explain the detail without rambling on endlessly, which is why we have a further information link to Formula One tyres where all this is already explained.  SSSB (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Bahrain Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Giraffer (talk · contribs) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this one. P.S. I am reviewing a lot of GANs, so expect initial remarks in 24-48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. Giraffer (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


### Background
Regulation Changes- Remove first para
Driver changes- Valtteri Bottas ... the end of 2021, with: Axe, both this and above relate more to the season as a whole.(and change the grammar of the remaining para, of course)
 Partly done. I got rid of the first paragraph, but I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do with the second... I can cut the bit about Raikkonen if that's what you mean, but if the paragraph as a whole stays, Bottas' move should be mentioned, otherwise it gets confusing. Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense; maybe you can just axe the whole para, and mention Zhou's point on debut for himself and China in the race results. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
 Done. Got rid of all the driver changes except for Vettel, because that was actually related to this event. Moved the line about Zhou's debut to the post-race section. Giraffer (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


### Qualifying
Q3/Para 3- Mention Perez as well, as he is the only one left in the top ten.
 Done Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


### Race
Add that Leclerc and Ferrari started leading the WDC, for the first and after this much time, and maybe how long they kept it in the season
 Done, added a short paragraph (to the post race section; this isn't strictly about the race) about how long Ferrari would hold the championships for, and how long it was since they held either. These kind of things can be difficult to find a source for (i.e. nothing specifically states that Ferrari did not lead the WCC between 2018 and 2022), but since F1 race results are easily verifiable this should be self-evident. Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


### Post-race
Add that Ferrari was ecstatic perhaps; that seemed big at the moment, maybe there are reliable sources for it too?
Did these teams say anything else?
Did any other teams say anything else? Add if anything important was said.
 Done, the coverage of this win was surprisingly moderate in tone, but I've added in a few more celebratory quotes from Ferrari. I re-read the sources and think I covered all the main points that aren't just drivers regurgitating facts. All drivers do media interviews, but they are rarely given written coverage outside of the podium contenders. Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


### References
Are StatsF1 and f1destinations.com reliable?
Wikilink the ref sources everywhere or nowhere, per MOS:CONSISTENT
Use one of either Formula 1 or formula1.com, again per MOS:CONSISTENT
I'll do the spot-check later.
I've standardized the wikilinking and naming on all the references and replaced the f1destinations.com link. It was referring to a press release by the Bahrain International Circuit, which is the only source -- generally tracks count their own attendance, and it doesn't get reported on much (in this case at all). The BIC source isn't ideal but it's more reliable. I've changed the StatsF1 source to the official FIA results document. Giraffer (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
You missed ref-6 for StatsF1, but it's fine enough if you can't find anything to replace it with; ref-9 is bad(8W), I don't know how I missed that- definitely change that.
 Done. Yikes, my bad. Replaced with the official F1 page. Giraffer (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


### Overall
@Giraffer:In general- Expand article wherever possible; add more detail wherever possible. It's a very well written article. I do not see any major isssues.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Replied to some of your replies; btw could you mark the things with done/remarks, would make it easier for me. I will do the spot-check in 12-16 hours(Have already done it informally, just need to write it down in the review); if you have made the changes by then, I'll pass it just after. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything should be done now. Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Giraffer: The article is GA quality now, informally passed. I just need to write down the refs spot checked before actually passing. Congratulations, well done! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Passed the article; congratulations @Giraffer:, it was well written, keep up the good work! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


### Spot-check
As the article is about an event, I'll mostly be checking the section with quotes and such 

Ref-3(BIC):  a race day attendance of 35,000
Ref-12(Autosport): in the wing and bargeboard area
Ref-13(Formula 1): the cap ... at $142.4m.
Ref-31(Sky Sports): Bahrain GP Qualifying result, top 10
Ref-35(Motorsport): Sainz who ... follow Leclerc home... Hamilton therefore finished third 
Ref-40(Motorsport): Leclerc praised ... ground effect cars.
Ref-42(Sky Sports): Max Verstappen ... reliability woes

@AirshipJungleman29 can you please clarify the rational behind this edit: Special:Diff/1252700456. What exactly do you suggest? What do you think is missing? A tag of {{expand section}} means that you think this section is lacking something. The presence of an {{expand section}} is actually grounds to remove good article status. But from my point of view it has everything that it needs. Yes, it is not as detailed as some other good articles, but it is also meets all the criteria needed for a good article.  SSSB (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There was previously a subsection dedicated to the driver changes for the 2022 season, but I removed it (upon request) during the GA review. Personally I don't think it needed to be axed, but I didn't feel strongly about it at the time.
Given that this is the first race of the season, there is nothing to be written about prior championship rounds. Comparing this to an F1 GA written by AirshipJungleman29, 2021 French Grand Prix, I suppose there could be more about the track/event history, but certainly not to the extent it requires an expand section tag on a GA. Beyond that, I don't know what else could be added. Giraffer (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I would certainly expect driver changes to be included in the article for the first race of the season; see previous GA-level examples such as 2001 Australian Grand Prix, 2008 Australian Grand Prix, or 2015 Australian Grand Prix. Removing them because they relate more to the season as a whole but keeping the "Regulation changes" subsection is an odd decision, especially when you consider that the "2021 season" subsection is surely less relevant than either? If I were the nominators I would have contested this at the review.There are plenty of details that could be included, you can see from the above examples. What were the expectations for the season? Who had been strong in testing? What were the expected consequences of the regulations before the race? Why did Pirelli change the tyre compounds? Even as simple as which teams were competing and where the track was. (I don't think that the body actually says where the race was, meaning that the mention of the Bahrain International Circuit in the lead is uncited.) Etc.The section looks a lot longer than it actually is thanks to the four subsection headers (which probably breach MOS:OVERSECTION—GA criterion 2b)). Consider removing them and using longer paragraphs — see WP:F1's example race report for an excellent example.This is not in itself grounds for a GAR—I spend a lot of time around that process, so I know quite well what is considered substandard there—but it would be nice to have a couple of touch-ups on this article while there are experienced editors willing to work on it. Hope that helps, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed explanation — that's much clearer now. I'll get onto those changes. Giraffer (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I've re-added the section on driver changes and expanded on pre-season testing. I'll add more about constructor changes, track history, and the implications of the technical changes (porpoising, overtaking) when I have time (and also tidy it all up a bit). Hopefully this is along the right lines. Giraffer (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)