# Talk:2015 United States Grand Prix

The mileage is incorrect in the circuit image. It states that the 5.513 km circuit equals 3.418 miles. This is incorrect. The true distance is 3.426 miles. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 02:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 United States Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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: 

"Defending race winner". I'm not sure this construction works. You can be a defending champion, but you can't be a defending race winner. I suggest, "Lewis Hamilton, who had won the previous edition of the race, entered with a 66-point lead ..."
I have read this construction quite many times and a Google search tells me it is actually quite often used.
Apparently it is a common American construction. Quite a strange one, but I guess permitted in an article about the US GP! Relentlessly (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"in practice sessions being cancelled and qualifying delayed, and Q3 cancelled altogether" Again this reads slightly oddly. How about "The three-day event was run in torrential conditions; as a result, the second practice session and the final qualifying session were cancelled, while the whole of qualifying was delayed until the morning of the race day."
 Done
"incident packed" needs hyphenating.
It is not a quotation though. Do you think it is not encyclopedic enough?
You always need to hyphenate a noun-participle combination. So it needs to be incident-packed. Relentlessly (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"to contest the Mercedes for the lead" – this can be "to contest with the Mercedes" or "to challenge the Mercedes".
 Done
"Alexander Rossi again swapped seats with Roberto Merhi" This makes it sound like they exchanged cars. I'd assume less knowledge: "Alexander Rossi had raced for Manor Marussia in Singapore and Japan, but Roberto Merhi had taken his seat in the previous round in Russia. Rossi returned to the car and so became the first American to drive in the United States Grand Prix at Circuit of the Americas."
 Done
"one that he had already equipped once" – "one that he had already used once"
 Done
"Jenson Button rooted for Alonso" – "rooted" isn't really encyclopedic language. I suggest "hoped".
 Done
"as had been the story of most races in 2015," – not in the source.
Removed.
"Both Red Bull and McLaren equipped new front wings," Again, "used".
 Done
TBC. Relentlessly (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

More broadly, I'm concerned that the first paragraph of the "background" section reads a bit like a shopping list: it's a list of facts without any coherent narrative. It could usefully be split up a bit and have various themes bits brought together – aero updates, engine updates, championship position, Sauber's 400th, etc.
I changed the order and have done some rephrasing, taking out some weird prose.
It's much better now. Relentlessly (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way of explaining the tyre process? Is there a page where the tyre types and regulations are discussed?
 Done
"overall varying complexity" – I don't understand what this is.
 Done, Rephrased with quotation from source.
"while race day itself" – needs "the", I think.
In general, commentators always say that without the "the". As I am not a native speaker, I do not know how colloquial that is, but with the "the", is sounds weird to me...
I think "race day" is very colloquial. Perhaps it's different in US English, but it certainly feels wrong to me. Relentlessly (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"Albeit going off the track late in the session" – "Despite" would be more appropriate here.
 Done
"Sainz Jr." You don't need the "Jr." if you're only using the second name and there's no need to disambiguate. This is probably true on most occasions where you use his name.
 Done
"displayed tomfoolery" – I think "engaged in tomfoolery" would be better.
 Done
The Telegraph references don't work with archive.org. The article content is missing.
Huh, you're right, what a shame! I removed the archived link. For now, the original one works.  Done
"Soon, conditions worsened" A minor style thing, but it would be better as "Conditions soon worsened".
 Done
Link aquaplaning?
 Done
"Thereby," You mean "Therefore".
 Done
"really bad" – the source says "really badly", which is also better grammar.
 Done
"prepare his car" – presumably this is actually a repair? Or is it a new car?
 Done
"pole sitter" I'm not mad on this as a false title (it's acceptable in US English, I think), but if you're going to use it it needs hyphenating.
It is a very frequent term in F1. I have wikilinked it to pole position, is that acceptable?
This is the same as above: it needs to be pole-sitter. "Pole-sitter Rosberg" is a construction that only exists in US English. It's called a false title because it functions grammatically as a title but isn't one. Hyphenated it is fine in this article. Relentlessly (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"equip slick tyres" Again, you can't use "equip" like this. "Fit" would be the normal word for tyres in English.
 Done
"profitted" is "profited".
 Done
Link virtual safety car?
 Done
"became another victim to the accident" – "victim of the accident"
 Done
"allowing teammate Ricciardo through into third, who in turn made a successful manoeuvre on Rosberg to move up into second" This is a bit overly complex: I suggest "allowing his teammate Ricciardo through into third; Ricciardo in turn made..."
 Done
"overtake teammate Hamilton" – "overtake his teammate Hamilton"
Why exactly is the "his" necessary? There is only one teammate that can be meant.
This is one of the more obscure rules in English grammar. All nouns are either countable or uncountable – that is to say, either they can be made into plurals or not. For instance, "car" is countable, but "rain" is uncountable. Countable nouns cannot exist in the singular without an article ("a" or "the") or a possessive pronoun ("his" or "my", etc.). "Teammate" is countable, so it needs to have something before it; the obvious word is "his". I hope that's a decent explanation! Relentlessly (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"Hamilton took second place from Ricciardo one lap later, as Kimi Räikkönen was forced to retire" This makes it sound like there was a causal link between the two. I don't think that's the case...
 Done
"Ricciardo was able to continue, but overtaken by his teammate," "was overtaken by his teammate.
 Done
"but failed, only to be in turn overtaken" I think this should be "but failed, and was in turn overtaken".
Again, this might be me not being a native speaker, but I do not understand why my construction is false?
Because the "only to" construction suggests a contrast between the first clause and the second clause. So you can say "Verstappen took sixth place from Vettel one lap later, only to run wide and lose the position again" because there is a contrast between his taking the place and running wide. There isn't a contrast between failing to overtake someone and then being overtaken. Now I look at the article again, I see you do the same thing earlier on with "The German moved ahead into fourth at Kvyat's expense into turn one at the restart, only to overtake the other Red Bull of Ricciardo some turns later." There is no contrast; the second clause is a fairly logical consequence of the second. Again, I hope this is a good explanation! Relentlessly (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"aquaplane conditions" – that isn't a legitimate construction in English. I'm not quite sure how to phrase it – perhaps just "aquaplaning"?
 Done
This seems like a lot, but it's all pretty simple stuff, I think.
On hold.

Thank you for your review! Please see my replies and reevaluate :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I am terribly embarrassed now, having misunderstood the word hyphen... Of course, you are right there, I fixed that. Your explanation about the "only" thing was good, I got your point and rephrased both sentences. I hope everything is in order now :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Relentlessly (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Super stuff. (And may I say that, for someone who isn't a native speaker of English, you write tremendous articles!) Pass. Relentlessly (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Relentlessly: Thank you so much, both for the very thorough review and the compliment :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)