# Talk:McLaren M2B

This review is transcluded from Talk:McLaren M2B/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
OK, I'll be stepping though the Good Article criteria in reverse order (I find them easier that way!). I hope to finish this tonight, if not it may take me a couple of days. Here goes:
Images: Pass - One image showing the car, with suitable licensing. However, I would recommend getting a couple of others from Flickr or another source. Perhaps to illustrate one of the engine installations (the guy who took the photograph you have used has pics of one with the Ford engine), or if you're lucky the chassis construction.
Stable: Pass - very few edits in recent history.
Neutral: Pass - no cheerleading or dubious opinions evident. I'm familiar with the problem, but I strongly recommend finding a way to refer to Bruce McLaren as 'McLaren' - it can probably be done without confusing him with the team and avoids the appearance of over-familiarity. (I think we've achieved the equivalent trick in the Brabham BT19 article).
Broad coverage: On hold - covers most things I would expect to see. However...

It would be worth providing some idea of how the car compared to its competitors, to give context. For example, what power were the other engines were providing that season? I've got some figures, but it would be best to pull something from one of your sources that make a direct comparison with the Ford and Serenissima engines, to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.
In fact, it might be useful to give a little more background to the 1966 season and the general disarray over engines.
No non-championship race entries?
Where did the idea of the rear wing come from?
Just out of curiosity, why were only two of three M2B chassis completed? The statement sort of demands an explanation!
Factually accurate and verifiable: Pass Appears thoroughly referenced to high quality sources, and content matches what I can find in the sources I have access to.
Well-written: On hold Basically fine, but some minor points I'd like to see cleared up.

You probably need to introduce some topics on first appearance for readers who are not familiar with the topic. For example, what is Formula One? (The top level of international single seater motorsport ratified by motorsport's world governing body, the FIA) What is Cooper ('the Cooper racing  team and car manufacturer'). Downforce is another example and there are probably more. You might need a willing non-motorsport guinea pig to help you find them. Only brief explanations are needed.
This is just a bugbear of mine, but the car isn't built from aluminium, it's built from aluminium alloy! Similarly glass-reinforced plastic and magnesium alloy
Overall: On hold Nothing major, but some minor tweaks. Is a week long enough to address these? Let me know if you need longer. Cheers.
Reviewer: 4u1e (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. A week should be enough time. SamH (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've had a go at fixing the problems. Regarding some of the specifics:
I've asked if the author of this image will use a free licence because it's better than any of the already free ones on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwright/4566091827
No non-championship races were entered.
The issue of how many chassis were made is confusing so I've added an explanatory note.
Comparing the car with its competitors is difficult because none of the sources I've got say much about that. I think given that the car was so uncompetitive and only started four races, the authors didn't feel much point in doing so. They mainly just emphasise how problematic the engines were and talk about the car in isolation. However, there was a bit of comparison with the Brabham-Repco, so I've added a little bit about that. Maybe if you've got anything that compares the 1966 cars or talks about the engine situation you could add something?
Regards, SamH (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent - very nice article. I'm passing for GA. I think you're covered on comparisons with othr '66 engines, but let me know if you want any more material. I've got a fair amount of sources on the BT19 that cover this kind of territory. 4u1e (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. If you feel you can add any more comparison to other 1966 engines or cars from your sources, please feel free. SamH (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, given that the Repco was itself underpowered, the only thing that might be missing is a comparison with the top end, probably the Ferrari V12 with another 50 or 60 bhp. 4u1e (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on McLaren M2B. 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/20070702171514/http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr143.html to http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr143.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) 02:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)