# Talk:2015 Hungarian Grand Prix

@Twirlypen:. @CtrlXctrlV:, @Fernandosmission:, phew, longest race report I ever wrote. But what a race! I'm sorry that I cut most of what you guys wrote, I didn't intend to at first but it was just simpler in the end. If you want to change anything, feel free to do so! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou sir, reads well and better. Only info missing is McLaren-Honda's first double points finish and Honda's 350th GP but this info is on team page anyway. Cheers CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@CtrlXctrlV: I'll see to it that I add it to Post-race later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a little confused about the whole Verstappen-Bottas thing. During the race, it was said that he got a drive-through, but it was not seen on screen. Now there is a steward's decision saying he gets no further sanctions. Anyone sure about what happened here? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Forget it, he got the drive-through for speeding during VSC... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
And three more penalty points on his licence. Twirlypen (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Hungarian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Overall this looks a pretty good article; I could probably pass it without any changes as it meets the GA criteria. However, I'll list my improvement suggestions below. Harrias talk 11:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Images
All main images are appropriately licensed and captioned (I'm amazed at the number of pictures freely released from one race alone!)
Thank you! I am trying my best to get good pictures of all races through Flickr, and all the users there are very helpful if you ask them to change the licences. Just now I was able to get great pictures of Sunday's Mexican Grand Prix :)
The flags are a bit of a sticking point. MOS:FLAG warns against the use of flags on their own, after all, as not everyone knows what the Venezuelan flag (for example) looks like. I appreciate that the flags do link to the country articles, but I would prefer something like {{flagathlete|[[Pastor Maldonado]]|VEN}}, producing  Pastor Maldonado (VEN), which is more intuitive within the article itself.
You make a good point. However, I need to stick with the conventions of the WikiProject here. I will raise the issue on the Project talk page though. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
This was raised during a Featured Article nomination six years ago and subsequently discussed in the F1 Project and the decision was made to keep using the existing system. Since then new technologies have been developed and the MOS, which is a just a guideline anyway, has become outdated in that respect. There are now mouseovers and even screen reader functions within the flag templates, making the accessibility concerns really minor. Tvx1 01:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned, this is above and beyond GA criteria anyway. Were this an FA, I would be more likely to push the point. As you say, Wikipedia has moved on a lot in six years, and while that means the MOS may be outdated, it also means that discussion is likely outdated. I think another conversation about the matter would be worthwhile, it only to explore options, even if you decide, again to stick with the status quo. Harrias talk 12:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Tables
Is there any need for the 85% font size, which can be be an accessibility issue. (The guideline does allow reductions down to 85%, as you have, but it advises using it sparingly.)
Oh, this is a neverending story really. The Wikiproject switched to these tables at the beginning of 2015 because of display issues with the regular wikitables on mobile devices. Now, these issues have been sorted out but I have so far been unsuccessful to get a consensus in the Project to switch the tables back. I will raise the issue again, but I am afraid, for now I'll have to leave them like they are. I'd much rather have them like they were before, as can be seen in my first GA F1 race report... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The font size is independent from the choice of table format. You can change that without having to change them to wikitables. That has nothing to do with it. Tvx1 01:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Lead
"..with a 17 point lead over teammate.." Should be "17-point lead".
 Done
Background
"..after the passing of former Marussia driver Jules Bianchi on 17 July 2015, who had crashed at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix and remained in a coma for the preceding nine months." The use of "preceding" is a little confusing, as the last thing to be referred to before that was the actual crash, giving the impression he was in the coma before the crash. It might work as well simply as ""..after the passing of former Marussia driver Jules Bianchi on 17 July 2015, who had crashed at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix and remained in a coma for nine months."
 Done
"..many of them in form of messages.." This seems like it is missing a word: "..many of them in the form of messages.." Maybe?
 Done
"The drivers and members of the Bianchi family (parents and siblings) linked in a chain arm in arm.." This runs on a little, perhaps split it further: {{xt|"The drivers, and members of the Bianchi family (parents and siblings), linked in a chain arm in arm.."
 Done
Free practice
"Meanwhile, the Red Bulls finished fourth and fifth." While it is reasonably clear what this means, it might be better to clarify, "Meanwhile, the Red Bull drivers finished fourth and fifth.
 Done
"While Jolyon Palmer replaced Romain Grosjean during first free practice again.." I'm not sure about the word "again", given this isn't information presented earlier in the article. Maybe something like "..as he had in previous race weekends."?
 Done
Qualifying
Rather than "Q1", which a layperson might not understand, I'd write it out "the first round of qualifying". Similarly for Q2, although as it is used twice, you could write it out the first time, with the abbreviation in brackets, and only use the abbreviation second time.
Forgot the introduce the abbreviation at the first mention as I usually do. Have done so now.
"..by setting "probably the most dominant" pole of his career.." I think it would be worth explaining that this was Hamilton's own opinion.
 Done
Race
Is there a wikilink for "chicane"?
As WP:LINK states that we should not wikilink "Everyday words understood by most readers in context", I feel that chicane would fall under that category, but surely that is open for debate.
"..while Bottas and Ricciardo touched at the start, sending the Australian back to seventh while the Finn.." To this point in the article, the nationalities of Ricciardo and Bottas haven't been mentioned, so the second half of the sentence isn't necessarily obvious to people who don't know the drivers.
 Done
"..at this point, behind held up by the Australian, who was.." Should it be "being", rather than "behind"?
Rephrased.
Is there a wikilink for "Virtual Safety Car"?
In this case, a wikilink is certainly warrented.  Done
"..to lead the field through pit lane.." Missing "the" before "pit lane".
Agreed, leaving it out is a little too colloquial.
"..in turn one, handing Ricciardo the position. Hamilton was handed a.." Repetition of "hand"
 Done
Post-race
'..so this one is for him [...]."' Given you end the quote, you don't the ellipsis at the end: '..so this one is for him".' would suffice.
The sentence goes on in the actual quote, so I need to make that fact clear.
Italicise The Guardian.
 Done
References
Ref#1 has Formula1.com, while ref#2, 7 and 16, which are also formula1.com references uses "FIA", while ref#13 has "formula1.com. FOM.", and ref#43 has "Formula.com. Formula One Administration"
 Done
The Guardian should be italicised in all references it is used.
 Done, also for Der Spiegel
Ref#45 shouldn't be in all caps, we apply our own MOS to source titles.
 Done
What makes "F1Fanatic", which describes itself as a blog, a reliable source?
This issue has been raised before in the review for the Monaco race. In the project, Keith Collantine's blog is generally accepted as an absolute institution in F1 coverage. He is an absolute regular at the races, appearing on TV and being present at the press conferences. Since the Monaco review, I have cut back on using F1Fanatic a little because of the objections raised there, but he simply is the only one to write very comprehensive reports on the free practice sessions and espacially on qualifying, where many sources often only cover Q3. Therefore I still use him where I don't find other sources as detailed as his reports.
That sounds reasonable to me. Harrias talk 12:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Similar for "autoblog"?
I cannot vouch for this one, so I replaced with another source.
I'll stick this on hold for the time being. Harrias talk 12:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thank you for your very good review! Please look over the changes I have made. Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm now more than happy to pass this as a GA.
Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2015 Hungarian 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/20150807141734/https://manorracing.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/stepping-up-fabio-leimer-to-take-part-in-fp1-session-in-budapest/ to https://manorracing.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/stepping-up-fabio-leimer-to-take-part-in-fp1-session-in-budapest/
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) 08:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)