Talk:2008 Belgian Grand Prix

message: There isn't a source for the Heidfeld, Alonso, Kubica incident because it is non-existent. It was probably made up by some Lewis Hamilton fanboy who's jealous that their precious driver broke the rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.161.157 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For Kimi and Lewis' little incident. I can't find much on the second one though...--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Formula One is dead to me tonight. The Ferrari bias of the officials is a disgrace. Lewis only went off to avoid Kimi, and gained no advantage. A Ferrari win means Bernie will have a good night with his wife tonight, which is why he is so keen to ensure that nobody gets in the way.--MartinUK (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoiding needs to be done by braking: Hamilton would have never got so close on the straight if he had braked and went behind Kimi. Cutting the chicane, he got past and while he had to let Kimi past, he got very close to him and passed him mere seconds later.  But as WP:NOTFORUM stands, I streak my own comment. --Pudeo⺮ 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But Lewis gave the place back to Kimi, and only attacked later. The FIA assured McLaren that they had done all that was required of them, and the penalty was awarded after Ferrari complained.--MartinUK (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mclaren also gave telemetry data to stewards which showed that Hamilton had lifted his foot off the accellerator and reduced his speed by 6km/h.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equine-man (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated section title

message: Shouldn't it be "+2 Laps" instead of "Spun off"? –Howard the Duck 02:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the label on Kimi's position (18th) is a good enough hint that he was classified unlike the two retirements. –Howard the Duck 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Raikkonen was classified 18th and has to be listed as such. I don't see a problem with putting "+ 2 laps - accident". Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kimi's classification 

message: Unless anyone has any problem with it, I will list the article for Good Article nomination (F1 needs more of these) here. No major improvements to the article (that I can see) can be made at this point. Apterygial (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could wait, I think there are some areas that can be improved, particularly qualifying and race, and also requires copy-editing. Plus it could be better idea to have a peer review ahead of the nomination. LeaveSleaves (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination 

message: I have created separate sections taking into account two things: (a) Appeal and Reaction sections describe entirely separate events and not part of post race proceedings. (b) To accommodate Glock penalty properly. Also, the section Appeal might need a better title. LeaveSleaves talk 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reaction section consists primarily of quotes and articles that were published immediately after the race and penalty. It contains very little portion that deals with reactions after court ruling. LeaveSleaves talk 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right. As is it looks a little clunky. We should probably rename the headings "McLaren appeal", "Reaction to Hamilton Penalty". Or something. Apterygial (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First suggestion is okay. The reaction section however does talk about post-appeal quotes. I think we should leave the title as it is. LeaveSleaves talk 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But looking at it objectively, anyone coming to the page and seeing Reaction would think that it was a reaction to the race as a whole, which it wasn't. It was focused on a specific event and subsequent thingy. Apterygial (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure post race 

message: I have just found this picture (I probably should have sooner, as it is on the F1 portal). Is there anywhere we could include it in the article? I think it's such a good shot, it should be there somewhere. Apterygial (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Right. It appears that you guys are pushing for FA with this article. I strongly suggest looking at current FA's 1995 Pacific Grand Prix and 1995 Japanese Grand Prix for examples of featured article style race-reports. Here's what I think of the article at the moment (structure wise):
*Lead - No problems here.
*Background - Needs huge expansion.
**If possible it needs to feature technical advancements of both the McLaren and Ferrari to help with the background. I'm not sure if any websites focus on this, but I'm certain the end of year yearbooks will have some bits on the technical side of things. See the example in the Pacific article with the Williams and Benetton.
**The Background also needs to feature any criticism that was aimed towards any of the leading drivers i.e. was Raikkonen criticised? Was Hamilton praised? things like that. I'd suggest seeing the Pacific article with the bit on Hill as an example - maybe a little quote in their as well for extra efficiency.
*Practice and qualifying - A mess.
**I strongly dislike this layout at the moment. The "normal guy off the street" won't have a clue what is going on here. It needs an introduction - mirror off the Pacific article if needed, with necessary changes. It also needs to include a few times to help with flow - how far was Massa ahead by a second or a tenth??
**The Qualifying needs a bit of a redo also - at the moment it reads chronological - it's an encyclopedia not a news site. "The Force India cars, which employed their seamless-shift gearboxes for the second time in this race," - that just sounds VERY out of place and a random fact. If you're to redo the section go from 1st postion to 20th - that would be more chronological IMO.
*Race - OK. Apart from a quote that appears in the very middle of the section that shouldn't be there.
*Post-race and others: I'd be tempted to merge the "McLaren appeal" and "Post-race" sections together - both sections are quite small, thus should be merged.
There's my thoughts on the article. Hope this helps. D.M.N. (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for your inputs. I feel we should wait for '08 yearbooks before starting improving the article further, since that would allow significant additional inputs. I believe we have utilized most of the online information available. On hindsight of GA review discussion and considering the concerns raised by reviewer, a PR is absolutely necessary. Of course, now that it has passed GAN, this could be done after expansion. I hope you would be there with you thoughts during that PR. LeaveSleaves talk 17:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, I was gonna say we should wait until the yearbooks come out - I would suggest waiting until the new year so everyone's calmed down (in case yearbooks bring a new spike in edits) and in case the official season review has anything on. D.M.N. (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to get the hell away from this page at the moment. I'll work on other Race reports, but I think we can come back to this sometime. I think we can probably expand driver critisism in background using online content, but apart from that, we can wait for the yearbooks. Thanks, D.M.N. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Push for FA - Comments from D.M.N. 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/belgium/Pages/lap_chart.aspx
** In Heikki Kovalainen on 2011-03-26 19:24:14, 404 Not Found
** In 2008 Belgian Grand Prix on 2011-06-16 12:30:48, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101111021335/http://www.fia.com:80/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/2008/belgium/Pages/lap_chart.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/2008/belgium/Pages/lap_chart.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605140326/http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/motorsport/f1news/2008/09/08/what-does-lewis-hamilton-have-to-do-to-win-formula-1-title-115875-20728681/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/motorsport/f1news/2008/09/08/what-does-lewis-hamilton-have-to-do-to-win-formula-1-title-115875-20728681/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080909224153/http://www.fia.com:80/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/belgium/Pages/race_classification.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/belgium/Pages/race_classification.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified