Talk:1997 European Grand Prix

message: "However, it later emerged that the exchange of position was by prior arrangement between the two teams in exchange for Mclarens assistance earlier in the race. For reasons never explained, no action was taken regarding this clearly illegal collusion."
I removed the above from the article. For starters there are no sources/references. Secondly BBC reported at the time that "His defence, according to reports in The Times newspaper last Saturday, will refer to claims that the McLaren and Williams teams colluded during the race.". This will therefore have been considered by the FIA during the disciplinary hearing and as they found Schumacher guilty and didn't find Williams/McLaren/Villeneuve guilty, was dismissed. Alexj2002 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McLaren & Williams 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
====Summary====
A few things as to why I've placed this article on hold:
* The prose is not great at all. It's confusing and doesn't always flow that well. The Pre-race section is quite hard to follow, and would especially be so for someone not familiar with the topic of Formula 1.
* The Race section could be broken up a bit as it is ungainly and difficult to follow.
** The article should also mention that the race was full of high drama not often seen in Formula 1. Here was Schumacher trying to win a championship for Ferrari, going up against the son of Ferrari legend Gilles Villeneuve. The two of them were racing flat out out for 48 laps before Schumacher rammed Villeneuve at the Dry Sac corner.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.87.230.199 (talk • contribs).
* The Post-Race section could possibly be broken up into subsections as to split the professional/team response from the media response, to make it less intimidating.
* 4.a has only been violated in a minor fashion due to the statement, "Therefore the laps could be seen as a true comparison between cars, and this indicated the performance of Villeneuve's Williams and Schumacher's Ferrari were identical." - could be seen as a true comparison by who? Could this not also indicate that Schumacher was a superior driver in an inferior car? Probably best removed.
** True. Then again, the Ferrari was quicker than the Williams on the slower tracks all season long, and Jerez was not a particularly quick track. The Williams team had a huge advantage in that Jerez was one of their regular test facilities, while Ferrari preferred to test on their own in that era.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.87.230.199 (talk • contribs).
* Although lack of images does not exclude GAs, I think the article would benefit from having a few more images related to the topic.
I feel I'm being maybe a bit harsh in some respects, but I'm too easily confused by how this article runs. Issues above should be addressed/contended by 5th January, 2007, or it will be failed. Good luck and thanks for your work! Mouse Nightshirt 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notice on my talkpage and for having a look at the article. I'd much rather issues be raised and the article be improved as a result than recieve GA status for an article with problems. I'll try and address the points raised asap. Alexj2002 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think 4a's been addressed by removing the sentence. I've split the Race & Post-Race sections into subsections to try and clarify things. That leaves just the prose to be improved (and images if anything suitable can be found. Alexj2002 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After having gone through your edits and re-read the article a few times, I think the article has reached GA standard and therefore has been passed. The prose, although essentially the same, has been clarified to non-experts and works much better in the current format of subheadings. I would suggest that it's still worked on to provide even better clarity for the benefit of WP, but I believe it fulfils the criteria as set out in WP:GA?. Thanks Alexj2002 for your hard work on improving this article! Mouse Nightshirt 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Oops! Thought it had been 2 days already, only been one, has to stay on hold for another day. Sorry! Mouse Nightshirt 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination <!-- <strike>on hold</strike> passed -->on hold

message: A few things as to why I've placed this article on hold:
* The prose is not great at all. It's confusing and doesn't always flow that well. The Pre-race section is quite hard to follow, and would especially be so for someone not familiar with the topic of Formula 1.
* The Race section could be broken up a bit as it is ungainly and difficult to follow.
** The article should also mention that the race was full of high drama not often seen in Formula 1. Here was Schumacher trying to win a championship for Ferrari, going up against the son of Ferrari legend Gilles Villeneuve. The two of them were racing flat out out for 48 laps before Schumacher rammed Villeneuve at the Dry Sac corner.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.87.230.199 (talk • contribs).
* The Post-Race section could possibly be broken up into subsections as to split the professional/team response from the media response, to make it less intimidating.
* 4.a has only been violated in a minor fashion due to the statement, "Therefore the laps could be seen as a true comparison between cars, and this indicated the performance of Villeneuve's Williams and Schumacher's Ferrari were identical." - could be seen as a true comparison by who? Could this not also indicate that Schumacher was a superior driver in an inferior car? Probably best removed.
** True. Then again, the Ferrari was quicker than the Williams on the slower tracks all season long, and Jerez was not a particularly quick track. The Williams team had a huge advantage in that Jerez was one of their regular test facilities, while Ferrari preferred to test on their own in that era.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.87.230.199 (talk • contribs).
* Although lack of images does not exclude GAs, I think the article would benefit from having a few more images related to the topic.
I feel I'm being maybe a bit harsh in some respects, but I'm too easily confused by how this article runs. Issues above should be addressed/contended by 5th January, 2007, or it will be failed. Good luck and thanks for your work! Mouse Nightshirt 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notice on my talkpage and for having a look at the article. I'd much rather issues be raised and the article be improved as a result than recieve GA status for an article with problems. I'll try and address the points raised asap. Alexj2002 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think 4a's been addressed by removing the sentence. I've split the Race & Post-Race sections into subsections to try and clarify things. That leaves just the prose to be improved (and images if anything suitable can be found. Alexj2002 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After having gone through your edits and re-read the article a few times, I think the article has reached GA standard and therefore has been passed. The prose, although essentially the same, has been clarified to non-experts and works much better in the current format of subheadings. I would suggest that it's still worked on to provide even better clarity for the benefit of WP, but I believe it fulfils the criteria as set out in WP:GA?. Thanks Alexj2002 for your hard work on improving this article! Mouse Nightshirt 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Oops! Thought it had been 2 days already, only been one, has to stay on hold for another day. Sorry! Mouse Nightshirt 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: Detail on the allegations that McLaren and Williams colluded to fix the results belong in the section on 'Collusion Allegations'. Someone had inserted the allegations, unsourced and stated as fact rather than an allegation, into the section on the conclusion of the race. Fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.90.185 (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collusion allegations 

message: the williams strategy used for frentzen is excellent and it should be mentioned especially if fontana has a section
frentzen was fueled to run a longer first stint so he could have more flexibility, and after letting villeneuve past in the opening part, frenten slows up his pace deliberately with the goal to get himself into a position a few seconds ahead of the leaders, so lets say if a pitstop took 25 seconds frentzen would have to get about 20 seconds behind the leaders when they were to pit
and thats exactly how it played out, frentzen was ahead of schumacher who was a few seconds ahead of JV and he held him back to villeneuve, as soon as villeneuve was right behind him then frentzen suddenly increased his pace and drove away from schumacher before he had to pit again
this is all just my opinion of how they worked his strategy, but i think its clear to see if anyone rewatches the race with this in mind  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.63.190 (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frentzen strategy