Wikipedia:Peer review/McLaren MCL35/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McLaren MCL35[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

I requested a review last December at the end of the 2020 season that went unanswered, and now that Formula One is in its four-week summer break I thought it would be a good opportunity to try again.

I would like to nominate this page as a GA at the end of this season and I'd appreciate comments on how it measures up to the GA/FA criteria as well as any comments on how reader-friendly it is for the average reader without an F1 background.

Thanks,
5225C (talk • contributions) 03:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5[edit]

As this is quite a long article which will naturally continue to develop as the season continues, it's perhaps a little hard to review this before it reaches what could be considered a finished state. I can try to look over some of what has already been done when I find the time, although I wont make any promises. My only initial observation would be that the quality of sourcing seems to vary, and while the article has many references to well respected reliable sources, there are a few in there which might require Wikiproject discussion to see if they're suitable for a featured article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a long article so I would be quite happy if you stopped with the 2020 content. As for sourcing, I am open to acknowledging much of the early 2020 content comes from sources of mixed quality, but I believe this improves as the article progresses. Thank you for your review so far
5225C (talk • contributions) 00:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the first twenty references:

  • Reference 1: Unfamiliar with Formula Spy, and the source doesn't directly state what James Key's role was.
  • Replaced it with a McLaren source in which Brown specifically states he is the lead designer.
  • Reference 2: Unfamiliar with F1 Technical, but again the information seems to check out.
  • I did not add this source and would be happy to remove all of the designers named in the infobox excluding Key if it came to that.
  • References 3 to 7: Sourcing for the technical specifications mostly seem to check out, although I can't see where any of the sources list BP or Castrol as suppliers though. McLaren and the FIA are primary sources, Speedcafe is generally reliable (the archive link seems to be broken though).
  • I think the BP/Castrol assumption was carried over from the MCL34, but I will check this one because it might have been mentioned when they got the Gulf sponsorship.
  • It seems like it's actually been carried forward since 2017 when they started supplying McLaren, but the situation gets consistently hazier with the Petrobras and Gulf sponsorships. Since I cannot find any source that mentions fuel and lubricant supply for 2020 or 2021, I've removed the fields from the infobox.
  • Reference 8: RaceFans is generally reliable and the source backs up both the 2021 version being called the MCL35M and Key's claims about the token system.
  • Reference 9: Primary source checks out.
  • Reference 10: Autosport is a well-established reliable source and it backs up the claim about Key joining McLaren, although I can't see Goss mentioned.
  • Added an ESPN source to cover Goss.
  • Reference 11: Primary source, although it doesn't directly state that Key was the lead designer, I think it's fair to assume that "technical director" is just a WP:JARGON term for that.
  • "However, I'm excited that James will be starting in time [to] most importantly have him be the 'father' of the MCL35." In context I think it is fair to assume that this means Key is the lead designer or at least overall responsible for the car's design. I also agree that the job title of technical director would imply this.
  • Reference 12: Unfamiliar with F1i, but it backs up the claim.
  • Replaced with Speedcafe reference.
  • Reference 13: Unfamiliar with Motorsport Week, although the source seems to downplay how different the MCL34 and MCL35 are while still backing up that they would be fundamentally different cars.
  • As above, replaced with Speedcafe reference which covers both. I'm confident of Motorsport Week's reliability but Speedcafe is a more well-known source
  • Reference 14: Primary source. Unsure how well it backs up the claim that they wanted to close the gap to the fastest teams to under a second, although it certainly doesn't contradict that claim.
  • Reworded this sentence to better fit the source.
  • Reference 15: Unfamiliar with GP Blog, and suspect that the name might get it called into question during a Featured Article candidacy. Backs up the claim about the team wanting to get within a second of the frontrunners, but it says Sainz said that, not Seidl.
  • Removed reference
  • Reference 16: Autosport again, sourcing checks out.
  • Reference 17: Planet F1 is a potentially dubious source (I believe other editors have been critical in the past), although not necessarily unreliable. Concurs with what Autosport said anyway.
  • I agree PlanetF1 is to be avoided and I have stopped using it completely as of the start of this season. I agree it's not necessarily unreliable, and since it concurs with Autosport I'm comfortable with using it in this situation.
  • Reference 18: Official F1 website. Mark Hughes is a well respected journalist. I'm not really sure that the source backs up the statements about outwash and rake, although it does back up the outboard loaded front wing, as well as the stuff about the cooling regarding the axle and sidepods.
  • Added the Motorsport Week reference to the claim about outwash.
  • Reference 19: Motorsport Week again. Information checks out, and also mentions the outwash.
  • As I mentioned above I'm satisfied of Motorsport Week's reliability and I can't find a more 'mainstream' source that discusses outwash, so I'm happy to leave it as is.
  • Reference 20: Motorsport.com is a reliable source in this era. High quality of information in this source which could be useful throughout the article. Seems to all check out.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been rather preoccupied elsewhere. I shall try to get back to reviewing this some more when I have the time.

  • Reference 19 (at time of writing): I believe Crash is generally a relatively reliable source. although I'm not significantly familiar with their output. Certainly some of its writers have also written for well-established reliable sources. Source checks out. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 20: Unfamiliar with F1i; the information seems to check out but the source just seems to be (openly) repeating things that were reported by Crash and Autosport. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, removed.
  • Reference 21: I believe Racecar Engineering is thought to be a reliable source, although given my own unfamiliarity other editors can feel free to correct me. Source checks out. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 22: Giorgio Piola for Motorsport.com. Information checks out. High quality source which could potentially be used further throughout the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've used a lot of Giorgio Piola articles in this article since he seems to be the only consistently-publishing F1 technical analyst.
  • Reference 23: Autosport; information seems to check out. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 24 & 25: McLaren website saying that papaya and blue are their corporate colours. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 26: McLaren website talking about the livery. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 27 & 28: Unfamiliar with Formula Spy; as discussed before while Planet F1 isn't necessarily unreliable there are generally higher quality sources out there. Neither of these references particularly contradict or add to information contained in other sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with a Motor1 reference.
  • Reference 29: Pink News is a generally reliable source and the information checks out. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 30: Offline source taken in good faith. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how offline sources are substantiated but I would be happy to take a scan of the relevant pages (I used pp. 9, 168) to back it up.
  • Reference 31: Race Fans is a generally reliable source and in this case verifies the information while backing up other sources already cited. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 32: ESPN is a reliable source and the information checks out. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 33 & 34: Unfamiliar with Essentially Sports. Information in article aligns with the source. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it's on a similar level to Planet F1. Replaced the one about token development with a Motorsport.com source.
  • Reference 8: Race Fans article; quote is correctly attributed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 35: Race Fans article that generally backs up the information in the article, although I'm unsure whether it backs up the claim that "most" of the aerodynamic changes were made in 2020 (a post-hoc source would be useful to back this one up). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having re-read the source, I've reworded the sentence and added a Motor1 source from late December 2020.
  • Reference 36: F1i again. Provided the source is reliable then the quote is correctly attributed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed it to a Crash source.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your help!
5225C (talk • contributions) 08:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a little tangential to reviewing the article as it currently exists, but I stumbled across a couple of articles which contain information about this car's development from The Race. I don't know if either of these would be useful as sources:
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second one deals with the MCL36 which I have a draft for, but the first one is certainly useful. Thank you again.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 00:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed another article has been published about this car by Autosport. I don't know if this is a useful source for the development of this article? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely think it's worth mentioning the process as well as the actual changes, so I have added some information from this source into the background section of the article. Thank you
    5225C (talk • contributions) 23:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/McLaren_MCL35/archive2&oldid=1055454421"