# Talk:McLaren MP4-30

The image of the MP4-30 at Barcelona has a clear watermark on it in the bottom-right corner; it reads (C) A. Morales. I'm not sure what the rules regarding this are, but I think that the image should stay out of the article until such time as it is resolved.
Even if it is a free image, it is my experience that authors who add these watermarks are doing so as a form of advertising—claiming ownership over an element, even if it is free under Creative Commons. And if that is the case, then I don't think that we should be entertaining them like that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the image is uploaded at COMMONS that's where you should raise your concerns. To be precise, this is the place. Not this talk page. Tvx1 00:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That still doesn't mean that it should be used here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It was uploaded by me. I was in personal contact with the author and he changed the licence in Flickr after I asked him to. I didn't spent much thought on the fact that there is a (c) in his watermark, that might indeed be a problem, even if the author agreed to the use. I will try to clear this issue with the people on Commons. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue is settled, we can use the image without any changes. :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Zwerg Nase. If the author refuses to remove it, I would be inclined to take the image out of the article entirely; it's my experience that authors do this to draw attention to their body of work, and that's not our job.
I am still hesitant to use the image, because the purpose of the image set is to show the aero updates that the team introduced, not the livery changes. The second image doesn't show anything that the other two don't already do. The first image shows the original nose and the third shows the Spielberg updates. The second just shows a new livery, which I think is excessive and unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
For my part, I am always very thankful to get images in the first place, so I don't mind if the authors want recognition by keeping their watermarks in there. So from that perspective, I have no reservations against using it. When it comes to if we should show all three images in the article next to each other, I am open for debate. I believe it is quite nice to see the three steps together in one graphic so to speak. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't really think it counts as a "step". Like I said, the purpose is to show the performance updates to the car, and nothing was added when the livery was changed; it shows the snub nose, but so does the Malaysia picture; it shows the new livery, but so does the Britain picture.  Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently liveries affect performance too. Force India started to add black colors to their otherwise orange, white and green cars last season because the black paint is lighter.Tvx1 12:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I wouldn't say that that's a very good reason though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a source for that, by the way. But no, Zwerg Nase that's not a good reason as such. My opinion is that it benefits the readers to have a direct comparison of the three looks the car had so far. How it looked from Australia until Bahrain, how it looked from Spain until Canada and how it looks since Austria. We have picture in the same style of the other two and it we can slot it in there without clashing with the prose making it unreadable. So I really can't see what the problem is. Tvx1 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that I agree with. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not supposed to be about the look of the car—it's about the performance of the car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And when did the caption for those images ever mention anything about the car's performance? Tvx1 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In the nose. That's why you change the nose—to improve performance.  Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
We have prose to explain that. The purpose of images is to show the reader a visual rendering of the subject. In this case the car. I can't really see how the purpose of images of two looks of the car (now three) can be anything other than to show our readers the different looks. Tvx1 10:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The prose explains the aerodynamic changes, not the livery changes. And before you add a section explaining the  livery changes, remember that McLaren have made several in the recent past—like the #JoinThePact at Silverstone. And that might be just one change in the season, but look at what they have done in recent years, changing every few races. Livery changes don't affect the performance of the car (sure, new sponsors mean more money, but you would need a reliable source to say that the car's performance improved as a direct result of the investment, or else it's OR), so I don't see why we need to represent them so prominently. The livery change is obvious in the two original images, so a third isn't needed.  Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Just like you need a source to say that the car's performance improved as direct result of the nose change. This livery change wasn't just the adding of a sponsor or inclusion of a one-off message. It was an entire overhaul of the car's livery. I really don't see the harm in including the image. It doesn't clog up the article in any way. It seems you just don't like it.Tvx1 08:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm advocating its removal because it doesn't add anything. The Malaysia picture has the snub nose, and the GBR picture has the Red Bull/Williams-style nose. What does the Barcelona picture contribute except to show the Malaysia spec car in different colours? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
That it doesn't add anything is just your opinion. It tells our readers that they didn't straightaway from the snub nose&livery 1 to the livery2&new nose layout. Tvx1 00:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is not related to the performance of the car. Have you actually read the article? It's about the design and performance of the car. Not about the colour.  Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Exaxtly, design. Tvx1 09:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Physical design—as in all of the parts of the car that directly contribute to its performance.
And even if you want to argue that it should be the graphical design, you still haven't addressed the fact that the GBR picture already shows it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I support Prisonermonkeys here. Who cares that if/when the livery changed? It is about the "technical" (or physical) design and resultant performance variations, not the color. The prose can say when it changed livery color or we'd have a million photos and words for livery alterations of other cars as well, from race to race in some cases thanks to track-specific sponsorship requirements CtrlXctrlV (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think you're exaggerating a little bit? Tvx1 18:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. You have defined livery changes as notable enough to warrant a picture; CtrlXctrlV's point is simply the natural extension of that logic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't it also have a taste of TRIVIA? And what if they decide to change livery during the season again? If this aspect were important to the sport, it'd be the subject of regulations. And I very much it is to any significant extent, if any. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It is, but the only real regulations are that both cars in a team must have the same livery, and that if you want to change the livery, then you need to get the approval of all the other teams first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I am still with User:Tvx1 on this. It is nice to have the three incarnations in one graphic. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Prisonermonkeys, that brought back memories of BAR's double livery attempt. Back on topic, Zwerg Nase, I'd agree with you if only the SAME livery were not also on the latest car. The additional photo unecessarily adds bulk and the livery change can be explained in words instead "Top is CAR 1, Bottom is revised CAR 2 with new nose design, introduced in GP Y and bearing the new livery introduced in GP X". CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I really can't see how it's bulk. It's nicely slotted in and it does not clash with the text. There a total of four images in the article. I really think you exaggerate with your bulk/clogging up. And no the car used from Spain and the one used from Austria just don't look the same. No only was the shape of the nosecone altered, the livery of the entire nose was also changed to accommodate the new nose cone. Tvx1 11:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Which are only relatively minor changes to the design. I don't think that the changes between the Spain GBR pictures are so great as to justify the inclusion of an extra picture. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto in this instance. And I should add that no car ever looks the same between races anyway, that's a weak point.  CtrlXctrlV (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Who said that we must only include images that are absolutely necessary? If we have two good photos, even if you argue that they show more or less the same, why not include both? It's a luxury we should embrace! More often than not we have Wikipedia articles where it is the biggest pain in the ass to find proper photos... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
That points to inconsistency then. How on some F1 articles we have lots of stuff and trivia is frowned upon, and in others such as this, it's allowed under personal preferences. In fairness, it does not involve you from what I've noticed Zwerg Nase :) In the case of this article though, we are showing the car x 3 and it's akin to graphical trivia since livery 2 is pretty much featured in the latest car. If we nit pick about slight variations, back to my opening sentence. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
So, where do we stand on this?  Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be 2 vs 2 so. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

How about this: We leave it as it is for now. The article is probably (and hopefully) going to grow in size over the rest of the season, leaving more room to place images around the article. Once it is so, we re-evaluate where which photo should go. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a vote indeed. Nevertheless there obviously is no consensus to make and edit regarding the image. We could really do with some more input. Nevertheless I think Zwerg Nase has proposed a good compromise. Tvx1 16:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 I am confused. First it is Prisonermonkeys who wants to get rid of a photo he considers redundant but now he insists on placing another one there that is clearly not needed and fills half the article with whitespace? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What's more confusing is the way you seem to think that once someone states their opinion, then that opinion is set until the end of time and cannot be changed under any circumstances.
Also, if you're getting white space, it's either a misplaced clear template, or it's something in your display settings. Either way, that section will grow over the next few months, removing the white space. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
And for the record, I haven't actually changed my position on what I feel is a pointless image in the set of three, because I don't think that it contributes anything, given what that set of images is intended to do—show changes in the car's physical shape. That doesn't mean that other images cannot be used elsewhere in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What a set of images is intended to do is determined by its description (i.e. the caption). It was tweaked to suit the additional image and it works. It doesn't clash with the text either. So that concern is a bit overdone. Tvx1 14:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The article has grown in size and several more images have been added. There is no further need to include the image in question, unless it can be explained as to why it is necessary. After all, the other two images are still being used to show performance-related changes in the car design, but the middle image does not. And I see that nobody has made any progress in dealing with the copyright stamp that should not be there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The copyright issue has already been dealt with months ago, so drop that already. Nothing in the caption claims these images show performance-related changes so that concern is unfounded as well. These three images are far more meaningful than the ones that were added later, because in contrary to the later ones, these three actually show what the caption claims they do: major visual changes of the car through the season. On the contrary, the lone GB image doesn't show Alonso scoring points in Silverstone, the Belgium (which isn't really that high quality) one doesn't show the engine-upgrades failing to produce improved results and the Japan one doesn't show Alonso complaining. The obvious only reason these are there is because they make the article look good. Tvx1 22:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't just change the purpose of the images because it suits you. The images were NEVER intended to show visual changes. They show PERFORMANCE-RELATED changes. After all, the entire section is based on the performance of the car, not the look. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't suit me, it suits the images. I can't fathom why you have such a dislike of this image that you would go through such great lengths to remove it, while at the same time you refuse to allow subsequent images to be removed despite clearly only being there for aesthetic reasons. Practice what you preach. Tvx1 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Twirlypen — the consensus at WP:F1 is that a driver only needs to appear on the entry list in order to be considered to have taken part in a Grand Prix. So despite Magnussen's failure to start the race, he still appears as having taken part in the seaaon article. There are also multiple references to Magnussen driving in this article, and he appears in the car's results table. We must have consistency between articles, and so by our own definition, Magnussen drove the car. We cannot get into a situation where Magnussen is listed as driving in articles with a secondary connection to this one, and yet he is not listed in this, the most relevant article about his driving. Furthermore, the circumstances behind his participation are notable enough to warrant inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So to be a notable driver, as indicated in the field entry, you need only to drive the car under any circumstance and not actually have raced the car? By that rationale, many drivers should be added to previous car articles. Friday practice drivers, even young/retired drivers doing promotional runs in city downtowns or actual runs up Goodwood Hill in 5 year old cars, since simply driving them and driving them fast is all it takes to be notable. Well, there's some work to be done, surely in the name of "consistency". Twirly Pen (Speak up) 01:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, I point to Nick Heidfeld driving the McLaren MP4/13 up Goodwood in 1999, an official entry of an officially sanctioned event that was officially timed. Surely these conditions qualify Heidfeld to be included as a notable driver of the McLaren MP4/13, correct? Twirly Pen (Speak up) 01:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Twirlypen — Magnussen drove the car and qualified for the race in sessions sanctioned by the FIA as being a part of the World Championship with every intention of taking part in the race. He even took to the circuit for the race before the engine cut out.  Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Will you please stop reverting edits "per talk page" when there is no concensus at all?? Allow me to define the word used in the entry field:
no·ta·ble /ˈnōdəb(ə)l/ adjective: notable
1. worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.
"the gardens are notable for their collection of magnolias and camellias"
synonyms: noteworthy, remarkable, outstanding, important, significant, momentous, memorable;
Kevin Magnussen failing to reach the grid in the only entry of his out of what will likely be 38 entries of the MP4-30 is none of these things. If you want to include every single driver entered simply because they gave it a try but failed, then change the name of the field instead of trying to redefine a word. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I have already explained to you why it's a) notable and b) contradicting other articles, and the best counter-argument that you can come up with is semantics? And then you wonder why there are inconsistencies all throughout the WikiProject. You also claim "there's no consensus" as ground for changing it and ignore the fact that there is no consensus for or against. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You explained why you think it's notable. But unfortunately, one person's opinion doesn't change the Oxford definition of a well-established word. You bring up consistancy, which I am fine with, but your argument that every entered driver (even if it's only for one event) who sets a lap time (even if they do not race) is "notable" only means that a lot of articles need updating to what you perceive to be agreed-upon terms. So if the collective WikiProject has indeed formed a concensus that "notable" means even someone who completes probably 1% of either car's total mileage in its lifetime is notable, then good lord, you are right then. The project is crazy. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 06:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
So now you're making editing decisions based on what you assume the community consensus would be?
And you still have not explained why an accident forcing a two-time World Champion out and necessitating the need for Magnussen to drive is not notable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Because I don't have to. The field says "Notable drivers", not "Drivers that attempted to race due to notable situations that caused a driver that actually IS notable to be replaced". This whole "let's name the field something but then give it a completely contrary meaning" infobox tendency is mind-boggling. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 10:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I have already provided the Oxford definition of what notable means. I'm sorry it doesn't go along with the perceived guidelines of what WikiF1 considers notable. Alonso crashing during testing and being replaced doesn't make Kevin Magnussen notable. It makes the situation regarding Alonso notable, perhaps, but it in no way makes Kevin Magnussen a notable driver of the MP4-30. Perhaps if he got points or ended up on the podium.
But in fact his performance of being an MP4-30 driver, whether it's his fault or not, was actually the very opposite of notable:
antonyms: unremarkable, insignificant, obscure
I think it's actually on you to prove why a DNS in the only race Magnussen entered in the MP4-30 makes him a notable driver of the car. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 11:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"I have already provided the Oxford definition of what notable means. I'm sorry it doesn't go along with the perceived guidelines of what WikiF1 considers notable."
Haven't you been doing this long enough to know that what WikiF1 considers notable takes priority? I mean, you've used the argument on plenty of occasions in the past. Why the sudden change now? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead, bring up the Manor table issue as if it's relevant to this discussion at all. "Debut" vs "First Entry" was the issue there. So instead of dredging up past issues that have no bearing on this one, I'll pass on that and wait for an explanation as to why a DNS in the only race Magnussen entered in the MP4-30 makes him a notable driver of the car. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 22:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: This might be a source worth looking into: 1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that it offers anything that isn't already covered in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, can you explain why you reverted Pyrope's edit to the results table? Looking at both versions, I do believe Pyrope's version was an improvement.

Pyrope, reduced the width of the table considerably, without causing any major problems. As a result, they improved the readability. Tvx1 14:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with Prisonermonkeys on this one. I feel the narrower version looks weird. And on a 4:3 monitor, as I have at work, Pyrope's version was still too wide, so it does not really make a difference... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"Weird" how? Just "not like they used to"? Also, just because it doesn't make much of a difference with your own particular combination of resolution and aspect ratio doesn't mean that is true for everyone. And if it doesn't make a difference to you, why are you bothered? Finally, including the {{nowrap}} template in a Wikitable is moronic and breaks the table's automatic formatting. This means that the table ends up being too wide for pretty much every single user everywhere, and when that includes people using the mobile form of Chrome what you end up with is a tiny, narrow little article as the interaction with that browser sizes the page according to its widest element, i.e. the table. I know that Ownershipmonkey doesn't like people messing with "his" articles, but forcing your readers to adjust screen resolutions (which in many cases may make the text in the prose bit, the bit you are actually supposed to read, uncomfortably small!) just because you don't like wrapped or simplified cells is a seriously blinkered and narcissistic attitude that pretty much typifies his behaviour and "debating" style. Fuck this for a game of soldiers. Pyrope 18:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I am just passing along the same piece of advice that I have been given when I have raised similar concerns in the past. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
From whom did you receive this advice? And did they give you any reason why they thought that the aesthetic preferences of editors was more important than readability and accessibility for readers? Pyrope 05:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall exactly who it was, but it was during the time when we were debating the layout of tables when the number system was changed. The whole point, and it became something of a consensus, was to make tables as readable and as accessible for as many readers as possible. It's well-known that I read and edit from a mobile device—do you think it's easy for me to read it? The most I get is the year, entrant, engine and tyre columns.
And I am not talking about your resolution settings; you can adjust the internal settings for Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
But just how is Pyrope's table dramatically less readable. I looked at them both on a desktop device and on a mobile device and they were easier to read for me. The height of the table didn't even change, it was just less wide, which is a good thing for mobile viewers. I understand your wanting accessibility, but it doesn't explain your obsession that every bit of text in a cell has to be on one line. Tvx1 13:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that I find it to look better when the text is in one line, it is also more complicated to create the table if it is in that fashion, with all the <br />s and so forth... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, changing every result table in every article according to this would be a huge pain in the... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Having just checked, I realized that some tables are already in that fashion, such as Williams FW17. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the edits because Pyrope's table is less readable. I made the edits because Pyrope's table was a response to his settings, and when you try to make edits based on one person's settings, it can have an impact on another person's readability even if you can see it just fine. Keeping everything on one line is the most neutral way of doing it because individuals can then tailor their settings to improve their readability without inadvertently affecting anyone else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out which setting these are that you keep referring to? Ones that allow you to alter just the table rendering while leaving the rest of the text on a page alone. Pyrope 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I was told that they were somewhere under the preferences tab, but they appear to have been moved following software updates. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything there, nor in any of the browser-specific beta functions either. Either they have been deleted or, as far as I can recall, they never existed at all. This is beside the point in any case, because to be able to mess with those sorts of settings you need a username, and most visitors to these pages are casuals and that is who we should be writing and formatting pages for. Pyrope 07:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:McLaren MP4-30/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Will be glad to review this (though it already looks pretty good!). Relentlessly (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Relentlessly — any progress on this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Prisonermonkeys, today's task. Relentlessly (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Review
Sorry this has taken so long.

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: 

"The car was driven by 2005 and 2006 World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso, who returned to McLaren seven years after he last drove for the team;[6] 2009 World Champion Jenson Button;[6] and 2014 season and 2015 reserve driver Kevin Magnussen, who temporarily stood in for Alonso after a testing accident". I feel like there must be a better way of phrasing this, especially the Magnussen section. I'd suggest "The main drivers of the car were the 2005 and 2006 World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso, who returned to McLaren seven years after he last drove for the team, and the 2009 World Champion Jenson Button. In addition, Kevin Magnussen, who had been one of the team's main drivers in 2014 and was the reserve driver in 2015, temporarily stood in for Alonso on one race weekend."
If the information is present in the article, it doesn't need to be cited in the lead, especially if it's uncontroversial. I'm not going to demand it's taken out, though!
"The car endured a difficult start". I'm not sure cars can endure difficult starts.
"some 55.8 km (34.7 mi) compared to a full Grand Prix distance—sixty-six laps—of 307.1 km (190.8 mi)" This is virtually incomprehensible. I think you want to say "This distance—55.8 km (34.7 mi)—is less than a quarter of a full Grand Prix distance of sixty-six laps—307.1 km (190.8 mi)." But I'm not sufficiently confident to make that change.
"on the final day" of what?
"noting that he could raise the ride height ... turning in to the apex" I don't understand this sentence at all.
"race winner Lewis Hamilton's race distance" Is there no better way of phrasing this?
This is a very impressive bit of work, with not too much to do. My edits. On hold. Relentlessly (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Relentlessly. It might take me a little while to get on top of some of the issues, but I will try to get them done as soon as possible and tag you when they're ready to be reviewed.
A few quick things that you might be able to assist with:
"race winner Lewis Hamilton's race distance" Is there no better way of phrasing this?'"
Possibly. The writing does assume the reader's familiarity with the subject, but I cannot really think of an alternative way of wording it. The idea is that in order for a driver to be classified, they must complete 90% of the distance covered by the race winner. So if I win a 100-lap race, you must complete 90 laps to be classified as having finished and a result recorded.
"noting that he could raise the ride height ... turning in to the apex" I don't understand this sentence at all.
The ride height is the level that the suspension is set at. It's measured as the height from the road surface to the bottom of the car. A high ride height makes it easier for the car to travel over bumps without unsettling the car, but tends to make it less responsive to steering inputs. Conversely, a low ride height makes the steering more responsive, but there is a risk that the car will become unsettled when travelling over bumps.
The apex is the mid-point of the corner, although even that term is misleading. As a racing driver, you want to take the corner as quickly as possible. The apex is the point where you can start accelerating away; if you have ever watched racing, it's usually marked by the car touching the kerb on the inside of the corner.
I'm not sure what you might be able to suggest as alternative wording for this, as the definitions are quite technical, and to include them would shift focus away from the subject and interrupt the flow of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
So, @Relentlessly, what do you think of the article now? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Everything checks out here, and since Relentlessly disappeared suddenly, I'll step in and close this. Wizardman 15:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion relating to the grammar in this article in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Which tense?. -- de Facto (talk). 21:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)