# Talk:McLaren MCL35

How on earth is the reveal date “not important”?5225C (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@522C: the car is due to be launched on 13 February. So answer me this: how would anything about the car's performance change if it launched on 12 February or 14 February? The simple answer is that it wouldn't change anything, so the date of the launch is not important. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops, that should be @5225C. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Simple. The date is vital because that is the date it will be revealed to the public, which will also reveal all the fine details of the car not currently known. Details don't have to be performance-related to be notable.5225C (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: nope. The details of the car might be important, but it doesn't matter when they are revealed—only that they are revealed. Take a look at just about any car article and you will see that we generally don't cover launch dates unless it is particularly notable, such as launching after the first test. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL states "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I don't see any reason why the date shouldn't be included. As an article about a future entry, it makes sense to provide the date more details can be expected. If that's not included on other car pages, maybe it's time to change that.5225C (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not news. It would be inappropriate to include the launch date as a way of saying "come back on this day to learn more".
If that's not included on other car pages, maybe it's time to change that.
No, it's really not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please direct me to the specific part of that policy where it says you can't give dates of future developments (2020#Predicted and scheduled events would seem to directly contradict your use of that policy).For the time being, the date is notable.5225C (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Note:The above was copy-and-pasted from User talk:Mclarenfan17 at 09:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC). SSSB (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@5225C: - Please direct me to the specific part of that policy where it says you can't give dates of future developments - no such policy exists because you can if the date is notable in its own right or highly significant to the event. I am in agreement with Mclarenfan17 that specifing the release date of the car fits within the secind sentence of the second bullet point of WP:NOTNEWS. I'm also not sure why you are quoting WP:CRYSTAL, the information isn't being discussed with regards to its speculative nature. Also just because it is appropriate that doesn't make it notable for inclusion, the release date also doesn't satisfy any of the critera mentioned in the quotation you provided above. The launch date is not about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects nor about whether some development will occur.SSSB (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I also feel that specifying the launch date goes against the spirit of WP:RECENTISM:

Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view.
A year from now, will the launch date be relevant to this article? Look at McLaren MP4-30, which is a Good Article. It doesn't mention the release date, but it still got GA status. 5225C, I think you need to break the habit of assuming that if it happened, it is notable enough for inclusion in the article. As it is, you have not satisfactorily answered my question of why 13 February is so important—how does launching on the 13th make the car any different to it if it launched on the 12th or the 14th?
To my mind, the only time if would be worth mentioning the launch date is if we could show that it had some significant effect on the car in the article, such as this (and I'm just making this up as I go):

The car was unveiled on January 32nd, one week after the first test in Atlantis. The team justified the decision to miss the first test as allowing more time to finalise development of the car, but team principle Homer Simpson later acknowledged that this decision meant that the team had little feedback to drive the early development of the car.
It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy as the reason for the date being notable enough for inclusion will quickly reveal itself. As far as I can tell, this is just a case of McLaren getting in early so journalists can plan around it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As it is, you have not satisfactorily answered my question of why 13 February is so important—how does launching on the 13th make the car any different to it if it launched on the 12th or the 14th? Because this statement is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't matter that the date of the launch doesn't change the car. It's the date of the launch! It's a piece of information that informs the user when the car will be unveiled. That is valuable.
The fact that the car is called MCL35 also doesn't make the car any different. Will you support me if I rename this article to McLaren Buttfart Supreme? Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Will you support me if I rename this article to McLaren Buttfart Supreme? - no, because it violates every naming policy in the book! And it would be WP:POINTY! That is valuable. - justify that statement. Why is it valuable? The date of when the car is launched is of little to no significance. WP:NOTNEWS exists for this very reason, WP:NOTNEWS states routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. - the launch of a car is a routine event. All the constructors do it every year. I also have to agree with Mclarenfan17 that WP:RECENTISM is an additional reason for the launch date not to be mentioned.SSSB (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say above, I simply find McLarenfan17's repeated question to be lazy and frankly insulting to anyone intending to discuss this in good faith. The idea that a piece of information can't be included here unless it makes the car "different" is farcical and absurd and is a textbook example of someone arguing for sport instead of productively debating. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The idea that a piece of information can't be included here unless it makes the car "different" is farcical and absurd
Again, taking a long-term view of the article, how will the launch date be significant a year from now? Or ten years from now?
You still haven't answered the question, though. Why is the launch on 13 February significant other than "it happened"?
I simply find McLarenfan17's repeated question to be lazy and frankly insulting to anyone intending to discuss this in good faith [...] a textbook example of someone arguing for sport instead of productively debating
You need to tone it down, please. You are very aggressive in every interaction that I have seen you have with other editors. You need to remember that we all want the same thing here—to improve the article—but we just have very different ideas as to what that might be. Your constant attacks on other editors are tiresome, unlikely to persuade anyone and will probably see you referred to ANI sooner rather than later. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's worth remembering that the cars that are unveiled and the cars that show up in Melbourne (or even testing) are often completely different—to the point where teams unveil a "new" car that is little more than the previous year's car with a new livery and a few visual tweaks, making the launch little more than a PR spectacle. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I originally questioned the removal of the launch date because I could not - and can not - understand why the date should be excluded. It seems like common sense to include the date that the car will be revealed. The use of WP:RECENTISM makes me consider otherwise, but WP:RECENTISM also states that "...in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts..." Considering the status of the article's topic, it seems obvious (to me, at least) that including the date would be helpful - the article can always be reviewed later. Yes, the date will probably not be notable in a year's time, but it is notable now. Wikipedia is dynamic, and the relevance of information can change over time.5225C (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: - WP:RECENTISM also states..."...such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information....".... Please justify why the release date is valuable because Mclarenfan17 and I fail to see why it is. My interpration from that quote is that it is justifiable to (for example) mention Sainz's current team in the lead even though this specific information may not be notable enough for the lead in the long term.SSSB (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I would call the date valuable because a casual reader, reading an article about an upcoming F1 car, would expect to know when that car will be revealed.5225C (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I would disagree. I don't think they would expect to know when the car launch is, exactly because Wikipedia is not a news service, we are an encylopedia and including dates of little significance to the subject is not enclopedic. Besides even if readers did expect to see it that doesn't make it valuable by default. SSSB (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I simply don’t understand how the reveal date could be considered as “routine reporting”/news and “of little significance”. It should be included in the interest of providing a complete understanding of the subject (an upcoming entrant), despite the fact that the date will not be notable over the long term.However, I cannot see any consensus being formed before the date in question is reached. In the interest of saving our collective time, I will accept your and Mclarenfan17’s reasoning against the inclusion of the launch date, despite this going against my personal wishes.5225C (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever noticed how we don't include car launch schedules in championship articles (like this one)? It's for the same reason—launch schedules do not affect the article in any way.
I simply don’t understand how the reveal date could be considered as “routine reporting”/news and “of little significance”.
Can you prove that the car existed before its launch date? If so, what makes the launch date so significant?
Also, you just proved your own point.
despite the fact that the date will not be notable over the long term
Prioritising the immediacy of it—especially when you acknowledge the lack of relevance in the long term—is recentism. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I’d hate to be a pain and start another discussion so quickly, but it appears that stacking the Grands Prix in the results table goes against a convention seen on every other F1 car page. The full-size table works fine on all my devices save for my mobile phone, so I don’t see an issue with width. However, I do find a single-row table is much more clear. Thoughts?5225C (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The full rational is explained at WT:F1#Re-thinking results matrices. It would also be best if you voiced your opinion at the centralised discussion there. Thank you. SSSB (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

McLaren are not using Gulf fuels/oils in F1. As all the sources explicitly state, Gulf is supplying products only to McLaren Automotive. For F1 it is just a sponsorship. Lazer-kitty (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@5225C: Please see this conversation at the 2021 season talk page. The idea that "2020 cars will be used in 2021" is purely an oversimplification used to describe the rule changes in the F1 media. There is no official confirmation from any team or the FIA that, for instance, McLaren will use the car they call MCL35 in 2020 and 2021. Given the scope of changes it is unlikely IMO that they will, but regardless we need to wait and see rather than make assumptions. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lazer-kitty: I am aware of that conversation. You'll note however, that my edit did not claim the car was to be reused, only the chassis. That is what the regulation dictates and is sourced and relevant to the article.5225C (talk • contributions) 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: We established in that discussion that there is no such official definition of "chassis." There is absolutely no OFFICIAL source, i.e. from the FIA or the teams, that supports including any references to 2020 cars being used in 2021, and that is not a debate. I've read the regulations. They say nothing even close to "2020 chassis will be used in 2021." Instead they provide a detailed list of parts that can't be changed or may only be changed through the token system. As I have stated multiple times, the idea that "2020 cars will be used in 2021" is purely the F1 media's way of simplifying the explanation of these complex regulations. It is not correct to print such an assumption in an encyclopedia. If McLaren choses to roll out the MCL35 or an MCL35B next year, then we can add that, but doing so now is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lazer-kitty: Given this is not a debate, I'll just have to take your word for it.5225C (talk • contributions) 12:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: I'm not trying to be a dick here dude, I'm just a little confused because we already went over this at length (and you were there). If you've found an official FIA or McLaren source saying "teams will use 2020 cars/chassis in 2021" then have it, but I don't think such a source exists, because it's a gross oversimplification of the rules. Teams are allowed to make pretty significant changes to their cars and I imagine some of them will choose to treat them as brand new cars and some won't. We don't know - that's why we wait! Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lazer-kitty: Sorry, I wasn't insinuating you've done anything wrong. I agree that there is no official source stating the MCL35 will be used in 2021, but it is clear from both the regulations and many other sources that the overall substance of the car will be carried over – so yes, the 2021 content on this article was likely improper. On the other hand, I don't see why it is inappropriate to report that the 2020 cars will be carried over in whole or part to 2021. I did participate in the 2021 season talk page but unfortunately I noticed it once a decision had already been made. In essence, I accept your reasoning and the consensus formed on the 2021 page, but I don't agree and am personally opposed. However, I'm not inclined to argue when I probably don't have a substantial enough case, so I've saved the paragraph on the engine swap in my sandbox and will use it on the MCL35/MCL36 article when the time comes.5225C (talk • contributions) 12:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD and by convention in all non-stub articles, the lead of an article provides a summary of key points from the body of the article. The lead, as it stands, hits the important aspects of the MCL35 and its history. Elaboration on these points is done in the appropriate sections. E.g., the car's début and its delay is discussed under competition history, its development from 2020 to 2021 is discussed in the "Switch from Renault to Mercedes engines" and "Development from the MCL35 to MCL35M". Additional explanation of these points is unnecessary and contrary to the point of a lead.5225C (talk • contributions) 02:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't hide behind the Manual of Style to justify bad writing. In its current form, the lead only briefly mentions key points; for example, it references the "delayed competitive début", but gives no explanation as to why the début of the car was delayed. It then goes on to mention that the car will race in 2021 because of changes to the rules brought about by the pandemic. Do you see the problem with this? Both the delay and the 2021 rules have the same cause - the pandemic - but you only explicitly tie that cause to the second of the two points. Therefore the reader could conclude that the delayed début happened separately to the pandemic because of when and how you introduce the pandemic's effect on the car's history. There are nine separate paragraphs between the initial mention of the car's delayed début and an actual explanation of why it was delayed. You have a detailed discussion of the car's livery before you get onto the delayed début, but the delayed début is far more relevant to the car's history than the livery (and that's before you even consider the way the team that built the car triggered the delay, and McLaren formally withdrew from the Australian Grand Prix before the race was cancelled).
Like I said, it's bad writing. 1.129.110.191 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't need to "hide" behind the MOS because the MOS quite literally defines what the lead is meant to do. So there's nothing wrong with my writing, or the writing of the other editors who helped to write the lead. On the other hand, your argument could use some work, because your idea of what a lead should do does not match up with Wikipedia's standard. The lead is meant to be brief, it is a concise recap of key characteristics and the contextualization of the article. Its length is in proportion to the article and it lends similar weighting to different aspects of the subject as is done in the main text, where the weighting comes from coverage in sources. Sure, it only mentions the car's delayed début briefly, but that's because anything more would lend undue weight to that aspect of the topic. In coverage of the MCL35, disruption to the season doesn't play a major part, hence why there isn't a lot of content on it.If you paid attention to the structure of the article, you will note it is organised chronologically, and that is realistically the only way it can be done. There is no sense whatsoever in putting the background (where car livery must be covered) after the section on the start of the season. That would be completely counterintuitive. All the content you believe has been neglected is discussed in as much detail as is provided by sources in the appropriate sections. If you're struggling to find it, I recommend using the table of contents provided at the top of the page.5225C (talk • contributions) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I see no problems with the lead, except perhaps it should be expanded to include details about the 2020 campaign. SSSB (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
"The lead is meant to be brief, it is a concise recap of key characteristics and the contextualization of the article."
There is a point where brevity works against you.
"If you paid attention to the structure of the article, you will note it is organised chronologically, and that is realistically the only way it can be done."
I did look at the structure of the article, which is why I rewrote the lead. And chronological order is not the only way to "realistically" write the article. You should prioritise the information that has the most encyclopaedic value. On the one hand, you have the livery, which functions as a callback to the team's history. On the other hand, you have a delay to the car's competitive début which interrupted the team's development schedule because factories were shut down and the revised calendar meant that there was less time between races, and so had much more influence over the car's performance. Which of these has more encyclopaedic value?
"All the content you believe has been neglected is discussed in as much detail as is provided by sources in the appropriate sections. If you're struggling to find it, I recommend using the table of contents provided at the top of the page."
I recommend that you read my comments more closely. Nowhere did I say that those details had been neglected. I said that they were important enough to be included in the lead because the lead does not provide enough context.
"So there's nothing wrong with my writing"
I beg to differ. The fact that you think there's nothing wrong with it proves that the quality of your writing is poor because you cannot conceive of doing it differently, much less doing it better. As it is, you have written an article that is basic exposition. Case in point, this part of the very first sentence:
"constructed by McLaren to compete in the Formula One World Championship"
This is only partially correct. While it was designed to compete in the championship, it was only designed to compete in the 2020 championship (and later 2021). Someone with no knowledge of the subject could conclude that this is the only car McLaren has used and will use. The car was designed with a specific purpose in mind, its entire reason for existence, which should be the very first thing that the article mentions. 1.129.106.131 (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
You should prioritise the information that has the most encyclopaedic value. - only in the lead. In the main body you don't proritise the placing of information in this way. Whilst I agree that chronologically is not the only way to do this, I see nothing wrong with the current structure of the article.

Rather than attacking people's writing, why don't you list the changes you want to make one by one (bullet pointing may be the best way) abd you can work to some kind of compromise, as boldness didn't work. SSSB (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The MOS lays out the expectations for articles and I can confidently tell you that this article's lead is compliant. The article is structured chronologically because that is the most logical way to discuss this subject. It's an exposition because that is what encyclopaedic articles are, they aren't thrilling narratives. As SSSB has suggested, if you have grave concerns over the quality of this article, you can lay them out for our collective consideration and we will try to reach an acceptable compromise that meets Wikipedia standards.

"you can work to some kind of compromise"
How can I be confident of any kind of compromise? 5225C spent months refusing to acknowledge that Lance Stroll had a contract for 2021, ignoring reliable and verifiable sources based on a convoluted theory that combined synthesis and speculation. So far his attitide in this discussion is not "how can I make the article better?" but rather "I don't think it's a problem, so this discussion is over".

"why don't you list the changes you want to make one by one"
There is one change that I wish to make, and which I have already laid out in detail: specifically, that the lead does not provide enough context on key points and presents those key points in a way that is potentially misleading. As I said about the following statement:

"constructed by McLaren to compete in the Formula One World Championship"
This is only half correct. The car was not built to compete in the Formula One World Championship, but rather to compete in a specific Formula One World Championship. Every other 2020/21 car article has a similar format to its lead, as do championship articles and race articles.
I also raised this point in my very first comment here:

"In its current form, the lead only briefly mentions key points; for example, it references the 'delayed competitive début', but gives no explanation as to why the début of the car was delayed. It then goes on to mention that the car will race in 2021 because of changes to the rules brought about by the pandemic. Do you see the problem with this? Both the delay and the 2021 rules have the same cause - the pandemic - but you only explicitly tie that cause to the second of the two points. Therefore the reader could conclude that the delayed début happened separately to the pandemic because of when and how you introduce the pandemic's effect on the car's history."
2020 was not the first time that cars have had a delayed début - Williams missed two and a half days of running in 2019 pre-testing which seriously hampered the car's performance. Therefore, to mention a "delayed competitive début" in the lead with no context and then spend nine paragraphs outlining other details of the car, some of which are completely superfluous, before getting back to the delay is in no way justified.
I do not say that this article contains bad writing as a form of attack. I say it contains bad writing because it is true. The article is not cohesive because key points are introduced incoherently. You have a section called "background" with the subsections "initial design and development", "livery" and "switch from Renault to Mercedes engines". Then you have a section on "competition and development history". The problem here is that the car was only redesigned to fit the Mercedes engine after the 2020 championship had begun, but in the article the redesign is detailed before the 2020 championship is covered. How is that a chronological order? 1.129.106.166 (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to work towards a compromise then there is really no point you being here. Additionally, the Lance Stroll situation is irrelevant, isn't anything like that anyway. There was no way to compromise with that issue and this isn't about sourcing.

Also, note that the lead had been copyedited so your third quote and the paragrapgh below it are no longer relevant. The same can be said of your penultimate paragrapgh.

The article containing bad writing is irrelevant. If this is your opinion then work improvement. If your improvements are reverted, discuss and come to a compromise, that's what it means to collaborate. Called the writting bad is unnecessary and reads as an attack on someone's competency, even if you didn't mean it like that.

You don't think the lead contains enough detail, 5225C thinks your contributions add too much. Then propose a middle ground. SSSB (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, the continued "bad writing" comments here aren't helpful.
The status quo is not correct though.  The second sentence covers the upgrade to the MCL35M for 2021 before switching back to what happened in 2020.  As a McLaren (and F1) fan I get it, but to a reader less familiar with the topic this is confusing.
It currently reads "The car was driven by Carlos Sainz Jr. and Lando Norris in 2020, and will be driven by Norris and Daniel Ricciardo in 2021 " -- but that's not correct.  They're 2 different (but related) cars?
Sainz departing for Ferrari is irrelevant here.  Important for McLaren, for Ferrari, for Sainz; but irrelevant in the lead of this article.
"defending their 'best of the rest' status against Renault and Racing Point." is a bit of editorialising that isn't (IMO) encyclopedic.
We seem to be getting hung up on article lead length.  Either version is smaller than that of McLaren MCL34.
If you want I'll have a crack at a reword and we can take it from there? Mark83 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC) @ edited Mark83 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
To fix that, I would suggest moving "The MCL35 ... COVID-19 pandemic." above "Originally intended ... COVID-19 pandemic." Then to address the issue with the drivers and also some earlier feedback from SSSB to include content on the 2020 season, I'd split that into two paragraphs and have something like:The MCL35 was driven by Carlos Sainz Jr. and Lando Norris in 2020 McLaren was able to secure third place in the Constructors' Championship, defending their 'best of the rest' status against Renault and Racing Point. (NOTE: 'best of the rest' is a term used in sources, so I don't think it's problematic) The team achieved two podiums and their best Constructors' Championship finish since 2012.In 2021, the MCL35M will be driven by Norris and Daniel Ricciardo and Sainz departs for Ferrari. (NOTE: "Sainz leaves the team" is just as long, so simply saying "departs for Ferrari" seems simpler to me) Add recap on 2021 season here'5225C (talk • contributions) 23:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
How can I be confident of any kind of compromise? 5225C spent months refusing to acknowledge that Lance Stroll had a contract for 2021, ignoring reliable and verifiable sources based on a convoluted theory that combined synthesis and speculation. So far his attitide in this discussion is not "how can I make the article better?" but rather "I don't think it's a problem, so this discussion is over". On the contrary, it was quite a reasonable stance to take, but that is irrelevant here. If you have a personal problem with me, which I get the impression you do, then we aren't going to get anywhere. My goal is actually to get this article to GA status, so I have every incentive to implement as many improvements as possible. Your initial edit to the lead was not an improvement.This is only half correct. The car was not built to compete in the Formula One World Championship, but rather to compete in a specific Formula One World Championship. Every other 2020/21 car article has a similar format to its lead, as do championship articles and race articles. But then you would be neglecting the fact that this article covers both the MCL35 and its derivative vehicle, the MCL35M. The lead does go on to clarify that it was originally intended to compete in 2020 only before the rule change. I don't see where the problem lies here.The article is not cohesive because key points are introduced incoherently. You have a section called "background" with the subsections "initial design and development", "livery" and "switch from Renault to Mercedes engines". Then you have a section on "competition and development history". The problem here is that the car was only redesigned to fit the Mercedes engine after the 2020 championship had begun, but in the article the redesign is detailed before the 2020 championship is covered. How is that a chronological order? Because the switch was decided on prior to the start of the season and affected development for the entire season. It's essential background knowledge to understand, for example, why McLaren rushed to introduce a new nose cone mid season when it wasn't clear it was an improvement.5225C (talk • contributions) 23:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what the lead currently says:

"The McLaren MCL35 is a Formula One car designed under the direction of James Key and constructed by McLaren. Originally intended to compete in only the 2020 season, the McLaren MCL35M will be produced as an upgraded version of the car for use in 2021 as the team return to Mercedes engines. This will be done in line with measures introduced to minimise costs to teams after the 2020 season was heavily disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
"The MCL35 made its debut at the 2020 Austrian Grand Prix, after the start of the season was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
"The car was driven by Carlos Sainz Jr. and Lando Norris in 2020, and will be driven by Norris and Daniel Ricciardo in 2021 as Sainz departs for Ferrari. In 2020, McLaren was able to secure third place in the Constructors' Championship, defending their 'best of the rest' status against Renault and Racing Point."
And this is what I think would be a better version would be:

"The McLaren MCL35 is a Formula One car designed under the direction of James Key and constructed by McLaren. The car was originally intended to compete in only the 2020 season, but as the championship was heavily disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the lifespan of all 2020 cars was extended into 2021. McLaren will produce an upgraded version of the MCL35 known as the MCL35M for the 2021 championship as the team return to using Mercedes engines. [The purpose here is to separate out the 2021 changes that affect the entire grid from the changes that McLaren made. After all, they signed the contract with Mercedes before the pandemic hit. This removes the implication that McLaren signed the contract with Mercedes because of the pandemic and the changes that they were allowed to make, when in reality they were separate events.] The MCL35 made its debut at the 2020 Austrian Grand Prix, after the start of the season was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. [I don't really see the need to separate this out into a new paragraph, especially when that paragraph is one sentence long.]
"The car was driven by Carlos Sainz Jr. and Lando Norris in 2020, and will be driven by Norris and Daniel Ricciardo in 2021 as Sainz departs for Ferrari. In 2020, McLaren secured third place in the Constructors' Championship, finishing the year with two podiums. The 2020 championship marked the first time that McLaren had finished in the top three in the World Constructors' Championship standings since 2012." [Actually naming the car's results seems far more relevant to the article than the unencyclopaedic "best of the rest" title.]
I have included commentary on the changes in bold, italic font. 2001:8003:2312:E301:61E5:FFD7:75EF:E277 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider separating the summaries on the 2020 and 2021 seasons as I've suggested above? "Best of the rest" is a term used in many sources and by McLaren themselves, but as it is discussed in the body of the article I can deal with leaving it out of the lead. See below for my suggestion:The McLaren MCL35 is a Formula One car designed under the direction of James Key and constructed by McLaren to compete in the Formula One World Championship. The car was originally intended to compete in only the 2020 season, but as the championship was heavily disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic the lifespan of all 2020 cars was extended into 2021. McLaren will produce an upgraded version of the car known as the McLaren MCL35M for the 2021 championship as the team return to using Mercedes engines. The MCL35 made its début at the 2020 Austrian Grand Prix after the start of the season was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.The MCL35 was driven by Carlos Sainz Jr. and Lando Norris in 2020, with McLaren finishing third place in the World Constructors' Championship and achieving two podiums. The result marked the first time that McLaren had finished in the top three in the Constructors' Championship since 2012. In 2021, the MCL35M will be driven by Norris and Daniel Ricciardo, as Sainz departs for Ferrari.5225C (talk • contributions) 04:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This looks good to me.  A few suggested tweaks to improve flow, COVID-19 essentially an abbreviation the second time, and comma after pandemic.

The McLaren MCL35 is a Formula One car designed under the direction of James Key and constructed by McLaren to compete in the Formula One World Championship. The car was originally intended to compete in only the 2020 season only, but as the championship was heavily disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the lifespan of all 2020 cars was extended into 2021. McLaren will produce an upgraded versionof the carknown as, the McLaren MCL35M, for the 2021 championship as the team return to using Mercedes engines. The MCL35 made its début at the 2020 Austrian Grand Prix after the start of the season was delayed by the COVID-19.pandemic.The MCL35 was driven by Carlos Sainz Jr. and Lando Norris in 2020, with McLaren finishing in third place in the World Constructors' Championship for the first time since 2012 and achieving two podiums. The result marked the first time that McLaren had finished in the top three in the Constructors' Championship since 2012. In 2021, the MCL35M will be driven by Norris and Daniel Ricciardo, as Sainz departs for Ferrari.'
Mark83 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Would you consider separating the summaries on the 2020 and 2021 seasons as I've suggested above?"
I think it would be better to wait until the end of the 2021 season.
"A few suggested tweaks to improve flow, COVID-19 essentially an abbreviation the second time"
I'm not a fan because of the way "COVID" and "COVID-19" are used in colloquial speech. To say "the MCL35 made its début at the 2020 Austrian Grand Prix after the start of the season was delayed by  COVID-19" is a bit misleading because it suggests that COVID-19 was the sole cause of the delay and this is not completely true. The delay was caused by restrictions imposed by governments and the season started before the virus was eradicated. It is the concept of a pandemic, not the concept of COVID-19, that delayed the start. 1.129.110.183 (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I just don't like the repetition in the lead. How about 'COVID-19 pandemic' 1st instance and 'pandemic' 2nd instance? Mark83 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Personally I would say that the lead currently seems quite short relative to the body of the article. I think that the lead needs to be broken into three paragraphs: The first should simply describe what the car is; the second should describe its development history (including the stuff about James Key and the pandemic); the third should describe its competition history in concise terms. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


### Break
I have put the new lead in the article. Are there any additional changes anyone would like? @HumanBodyPiloter5: I think we're tending towards that format, are there any specific changes you would like to see?5225C (talk • contributions) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@5225C: I think ideally the first paragraph should read as something like:
"The McLaren MCL35 is a Formula One car constructed by McLaren. It was used by McLaren to compete in the 2020 Formula One World Championship, using Renault engines. An upgraded version known as the McLaren MCL35M, which will use Mercedes engines, is expected to be used by McLaren to compete in the 2021 Formula One World Championship."
It doesn't have to be worded exactly like that, but that's the information I believe is relevant to the first paragraph of the lead. Any more in depth information in the first paragraph is just potentially confusing to a reader who has merely come to a page to learn the answer to the very basic question "what is this thing?"
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One § Splitting of car articles.  FozzieHey (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mistery13, Ralphster7,  and Mark83: LinkedIn is not an acceptable source per 9 community discussions. Unless these people's roles can be sourced independently, they should not be in the infobox. From my limited experience with LinkedIn none of these profiles appear to be verified and so don't even meet the threshold for self-description. You can see in this page's history the number of changes that this section has undergone because it's very difficult to nail down who was working at McLaren at the time and whether or not they contributed (i.e. designers who left in 2019 probably still did a fair bit of work on the 2020 car, but we can't be certain unless this has been explicitly stated by a reliable source). Because of this, I will be removing everyone sourced through LinkedIn until verifiable, reliable, sources can be found for them (I have checked and have not found any). 5225C (talk • contributions) 22:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@5225C:Just for the record I didn't try to add LinkedIn as a reference, I've been pushing for verifiability here. Thanks for the link to the context though; on reflection makes sense of course. Mark83 (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mark83: I know, I was just pinging you so you would be aware of the discussion.5225C (talk • contributions) 12:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Understood.  Thank you. Mark83 (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:McLaren MCL35/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oldest outstanding nomination, eh? Don't really get why, but I'll review it now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect it was because of the length and the lack of GA reviewers with an interest in F1, but thank you for taking it on. I'm currently in the midst of university exams but I will address your comments whenever I have time this week. Exams finish next Thursday so I will be free after that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


### General notes
Extremely thorough referencing — well done. References appear to be from generally reliable sources.
However, numerous citations have url-status CS1 maintenance errors.
Please have a look at citations 9, 10, 21, 25, 30, 34/5, 122/3, 124,  129, 130, 132, 209, 216/7, 221/2, 226/7, 263, 272/3, 277, 280-285, 287-301, 303-312, 314-348, 350/1, and 353:2021.
Random citation spot-check:
16 good
88 good
104 good
106 good
143 good
156 good
267 good
286 good
Sampling is all fine.
I have corrected some small instances of American spelling in the text.
Copyvio 24.8%, so plagiarism unlikely.
Mostly follows MOS, and prose is mostly clear. Exceptions of lesser quality will be highlighted below.
Most of these problems involve a superfluity of drivers' names, when pronouns and subclauses would be preferable.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

CS1 maintenance should all be fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


### Lead & infobox
First paragraph could be a bit longer. At the moment, there are five rather short paragraphs—would suggest fusing them into four or even three paragraphs of longer length.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
" featuring a new aerodynamic design that increased efficiency and was better optimized for Renault engines." Two points: "efficiency" - what specifically? Fuel? Speed? Something else? Make sure its not a weasel word. Secondly, Renault engines could use a link.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Might want to link "was extended into 2021" to 2021 Formula One World Championship#Regulation changes.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
" setting one track record" --> "setting a track record at [insert track here]."
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
"Over the course of the season, two fastest laps, one pole position, and five podiums were achieved with the updated car." Wordy, passive voice unneeded. Perhaps combine with previous sentence.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
2010 is linked but 2012 isn't. Perhaps link the races instead of the championships.
2012 has already been linked in the lead. I could link the races instead but that could be seen as MOS:EGG. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Understood. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
"and the two seasons it was used in saw a considerable improvement in the team's performance" --> "and the team's results improved considerably during the two seasons"
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
"the top two" - don't assume everyone reading the article is an F1 fan.
I'm not going to name the teams here since I don't think it's relevant to a general overview of the MCL35. Instead I changed it from "top two" to "leading teams". 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Acceptable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
there should be some sort of wikilink for turbo-hybrid era
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
In infobox:
Was the battery supplied by anyone? Same for clutch.
Renault for the battery and McLaren Applied Technologies for the clutch, but I'll double-check to see if these can be combined with the electric motor and transmission fields. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Any possible expansion about the brakes?
Probably just the material but I'll need to check that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


### Background
"the pace deficit to the top three teams which at that point was still over a second" — again, be definite. Which teams were they, and was the one-second-loss in qualifying or the race, or both?
Since this section is on development rather than competition I've again changed it to "leading teams" – they're introduced properly later on. THe loss was in both so I've labelled it "overall pace deficit" which  is hopefully clear enough. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
You can relink and put the full names of everyone featured in the lead. Lead and main body are treated separately.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
"the MCL35 had a greater emphasis on the outwash effect" — a car can't emphasise anything, presumably it was built with a greater emphasis.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you think incorporating the 2021 livery section into the main livery section would work?
No, since that would break the chronology of the article. This background section is really dedicated to the original MCL35 and its contextual information. I've changed § Initial design and development to § Original design and development but if that isn't clear enough I'm open to suggestions. Possibly I could split § Competition and development history into two sections, one for the original car and one for the updated spec, and then merge the current § Background into the MCL35 section.  5225C (talk • contributions)
I think that might work better. I'll wait for you to make any such changes before I pass through the MCL35M section (and after). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to work through the comments you have already left first, then I'll restructure and ask you to comment on the rest. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Ok, I have restructured the article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


### MCL35: 2020 season
#### Pre-season
" the team established their aim" publicly or privately?
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Join the one-sentence paragraphs at the end of the section.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


#### Opening rounds and double-header events
"Norris qualified fourth and was promoted to third after a penalty was given to Lewis Hamilton, while Sainz qualified eighth. This was McLaren's best grid start since the 2016 Austrian Grand Prix." Firstly, what was the best grid start? Norris only, or both teammates together, or both? Secondly, try to join the sentences.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"On the final lap"
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The constant 'at the [insert Grand Prix]]...Norris had this position in the WDC, Sainz had this position' is a little too WP:PROSELINE for my liking. Try to vary the writing a little. To be clear, it's not something that could fail this GAN, but it's something to look out for. I could copyedit it, if you wish.
"Both drivers referenced tyre management as their main challenge as Norris and Sainz finished..." --> "after they finished..."
Fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"McLaren was overtaken by Ferrari in the WCC and left the round in fourth place, two points behind Ferrari." Clunky. Also, the second Ferrari is linked but the first isn't.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


#### Remaining European rounds
"Despite this, Sainz finished sixth and Norris tenth. Sainz improved to ninth and Norris fell to seventh in the WDC" connect sentences.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"they matched" --> "they had matched"? Also, who's 'they', since neither Sainz or Norris were at McLaren in 2018?
The team matched. Fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Despite concerns during pre-season testing over the pace advantage of the RP20, McLaren became more confident with the performance of the car" unneeded
Gone. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"During free practice, the team tested a new floor and diffuser compliant with 2021 regulations (less aerodynamic parts and slimmer compared to the 2020 regulations)." Clunky.
I've moved the explanatory bit to a note but I'm not sure how else I can improve this. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I've smoothened it slightly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Sainz did not start the race" --> "He did not start..." Similar for "Norris climbed three places to finish seventh. Norris improved to sixth in the WDC..."
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"non-finish"—DNF is an acceptable term.
It isn't a DNF though, it's a DNS. Both a DNS and a DNF are non-finishes, but a DNS is not a DNF. There is a distinction made in F1 statistics between not starting a race and starting a race but not finishing it or being classified. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
My mistake. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Both Sainz and Norris" --> "both drivers"
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"After the yellow and red flags caused by Magnussen and Leclerc, the McLarens restarted the race seventh and eighth. Norris finished fourth while Sainz attempted to catch race leader Pierre Gasly, reducing the gap to 0.415 seconds by the final lap." Extremely confusing if you don't know the context.
Added links for yellow flags and red flags. Clarified which driver was in which position. SHopefully clearer.
Might be useful to clearly state that Sainz overtook cars on the way to racing Gasly, otherwise the sudden jump between 'was seventh' and 'challenging the race leader' is a bit surprising (I couldn't really remember what happened, so I went back and watched the highlights). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"said that it was the AlphaTauri team's decision to run a higher downforce on their AT01 and the advantage it gave Gasly through the second sector that allowed him to hold off Sainz" I feel like there's something syntactically wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on what. Can you rephrase?
New wording should address that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Second instance of "published in 2021". Is it necessary?
I think it's quite important contextually since team's change their PR approach over time. Would you prefer it removed? 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that McLaren maintained the same attitude from the end of the race, so in this case, please remove it, @5225C:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"During the first free practice session," of which race? Also, the 'free' is unnecessary, and this goes for every other instance too.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"Sainz qualified ninth" --> "He would qualify ninth"
I have a personal distaste for the "(s)he would" phrasing because I think it makes the article sound too news article-y, so I changed it to "He qualified ninth".
"During the race, Stroll collided with Sainz on the opening lap causing him to spin.[116] He was then hit by Sebastian Vettel who could not take evasive action, but unlike Vettel, Sainz's car was undamaged." Be wary of he/him pronouns—can be confusing when multiple people involved are male.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"of the 2020 season. Norris finished the race sixth. Norris took fourth in the WDC as Sainz fell " --> "of the 2020 season, while Norris finished sixth, regaining fourth in the WDC as his teammate fell..."
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"at the Tuscan Grand Prix. Sainz and Norris" --> "at the Tuscan Grand Prix. He and Norris"
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Sainz explained after qualifying" couldn't really be before qualifying could it?
That is true. Fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"the incidents at the previous race and in free practice" what incidents in practice?
Fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Rejoin can be one word, pointless can be too.
Point-less can't be one word because then it becomes "pointless" which would be read as "having little or no purpose" rather than "without scoring points". 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Per the Oxford English Dictionary, "point-less" is not recognised as a term, while "pointless" carries the alternative meaning of "Of a competitor, team, etc.: not having scored a point. Of a game or contest: in which no point is scored." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Norris qualified eighth and Sainz tenth. Sainz said he was unhappy with the upgrade package." --> "Norris qualified eighth and Sainz, who said he was unhappy with the upgrade package, tenth."
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
" after his pit stop" --> "after pitting"
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


#### Closing rounds
"re-designed" no dash needed
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"with stewards saying": stewards don't say, they judge or declare.
saying --> stating. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Sainz was given a three-place grid penalty for impeding Pérez, which Sainz said was partially due to the weather conditions" source says that Sainz blamed it entirely on the weather conditions, so --> "Sainz blamed the poor conditions for his blocking of Perez, for which he was given a three-place grid penalty"
Fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Sainz recovered to fifth and Norris to eighth while the latter also set the fastest lap of the race. Sainz overtook Norris for seventh in the WDC." --> "Recovering to fifth, he took seventh place in the standings from his teammate, who had finished eighth with the fastest lap."
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
You can do similar with "Norris ultimately finished fourth in the race with Sainz fifth, meaning McLaren re-took third in the WCC by 17 points after both Racing Point cars retired. Norris overtook Sainz for seventh in the WDC."
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"The result meant that the team exceeded their 2019 total of 145 points over 21 races, having scored 149 points in 14 races." Citation?
I don't have a citation that explicitly states that. The only citation I could potentially offer would be the FIA documents after each round. This would not be OR under WP:CALC. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"choosing the correct setup – particularly downforce levels – would be challenging" explain why
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"the week before" --> "the previous week"; " and his own error" --> "and an error"
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"However, shortly after Sainz's second pitstop, a safety car gave rivals who passed him after his pitstop an advantage over him." Clunky.
Hopefully fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Assessment and characteristics section looks good. Will address the rest of the review tomorrow, but I think I can put it on hold for the moment. @5225C:, please do not respond after the below line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


### General remaining points
Restructuring looks good.
Any updates on the battery, clutch, and brakes?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Expanded with existing sources. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


### MCL35M: 2021 season
Sections are a little weird - goes straight from two = signs to four. Also, is the 2021 season heading necessary?
Fixed the heading, must've missed that one. I would prefer the 2021 season and 2020 season headings to divide the competition history from the non-competition history. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


#### Development from the MCL35 to the MCL35M
Last four paragraphs are quite short, and could be combined in various combinations.
I've combined the first three but left the fourth independent since it's a change that received coverage independent of the others and was a one of the more notable aspects of the MLC35M. I hope that's acceptable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
"Due to the restrictions imposed by the FIA's token system for 2021 development, most of the aerodynamic changes for the MCL35M were introduced in the 2021 season." as opposed to being introduced when exactly?
Meant to say introduced in the 2020 season. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
" the team can effectively run" tense
Fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


#### Liveries
I recall the Gulf livery was received very positively; perhaps include some of this, if it is provided by RS?
Done, also added the influence it had on the MCL36. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


#### Pre-season
One-sentence paragraphs are a no-no. Two-sentence paragraphs are marginally acceptable.
Hopefully a three-sentence paragraph is alright. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


#### Opening rounds
"expected the team would be slower than Mercedes and Red Bull when it came to qualifying and the race and closer to the rest of the field" --> "slower than Mercedes and Red Bull and closer to the rest of the field when it came to qualifying and the race"
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Reference 229 can be at the end of the sentence.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
" given his final qualifying lap was third quickest but was struck for a track limits violation." --> "would have been third quickest had it not been disqualified..."
Fixed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
" recovered to ninth. After this race, McLaren was" two sentences unnneeded. maybe "ninth, meaning that McLaren became..."
Combined. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


#### European races
"Norris qualified for the race eighth and Ricciardo tenth. Norris had a poor start and fell to tenth, but finished fifth; Ricciardo finished sixth." sentences could be combined.
Done. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
"Bottas and Stroll would both be issued five-place grid penalties for the next race and two super licence points for the incidents." probably unnnecessary
Removed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Rest is good, albeit methodical. I would probably say that the article, after corrections, will meet FAC standard in every criteria aside 1a) — engaging and professional prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I have considered an FA nomination so if the prose is the only obstacle I might go for it. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations! Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)