Talk:Formula One/GA3

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: MadelynnSienna (talk · contribs) 00:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Fwedthebwead (talk · contribs) 12:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fwedthebwead! Thank you for your review, and for putting the article on hold rather than outright failing it. I've gone through it and attempted to fix all the points you brought up. Just a few things to note:

1. I checked citation 143 and the URL appears to be working for me.

2. You mentioned that citation 244 has no mention of the quote regarding nelson describing racing in Monaco like riding a bicycle around your room, however, the cited article opens with the sentence "Nelson Piquet described driving a Grand Prix car in Monte Carlo as like trying to ride your bicycle around your living room", so I'm slightly confused as to what you meant there.

3. You mentioned that citation 174 only lists the number of wins by British drivers, not the 20 world championships, however, the cited link lists out the 20 world championships won by these drivers, so I'm slightly confused as to what you meant there.

4. Word count of an article, per WP:SIZERULE, is typically measured using the built-in page size feature under tools. I did double-check the article, and it is about 9,800, so I do believe it meets the requirement.

Could you please go over the article now that the requisite changes have been made. Please let me know if there are any other changes to be made to have it pass the review. MadelynnSienna (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ack, it seems it's evident I was writing the review too late in the night.

1. For citation 143, it gave me a DNS error when I first checked it, although I checked it now and it seems that's resolved.

2. I have honestly no idea how I missed this that's my fault

3. Same for this, I was searching for the number 20 instead of counting the number of drivers haha

4. That's also just my fault, I didn't realize that tool existed until today and have been just copy-pasting the article in a google doc whoops

I checked over all your changes and it looks good to me! The only mistakes left are mine it seems (sorry for any confusion I caused you). I'll change the status to GA now, congrats!! Fwedthebwead (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this Fwedthebwead (talk)

Hello, I'm genuinely so sorry about answering to this so late, I got caught up in life matters.

Citations wise, the previous reviews called for more citations, and although there were many good changes made, I still found a maintenance tag for citation needed and the sentence starting with "They have also contended that established teams..." also remaining citation-less. I also found 2 citations that have URLs that do not work, those being citation 333 and 143. I'm new to reviewing GA articles, so I'm not sure if this would mean a quickfail due to not noting the previous GA review, so I have asked for a 2nd opinion. If I have done anything incorrectly please do tell me. Fwedthebwead (talk)

@Fwedthebwead: It depends on the number of citations that are needed. If it just these, I don't think a quick fail would be justified. A quickfail should be used only when there are major.changes to be made that would take a significant amount of time. The issues you have described so far can probably be rectified within an hour. SSSB (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to SSSB for replying to my issue, here's the full review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• "open-wheel single-seater formula racing cars " should be changed to "open-wheel, single-seater formula racing cars". Same problem in "Cars and technology" section.
• "They were briefly reintroduced in 2001 but were banned once more in 2004 and 2008, respectively." I believe the "respectively" is not needed due to not specifying which aids for which year.
• The use of oxford commas is inconsistent in the article, such as where "orange, brown and gold colours" and "Germany, Austria, Italy and Switzerland" don't have one while "electronics, aerodynamics, suspension, and tyres" and "Traction control, launch control, automatic shifting, and other electronic driving aids" use one.
• "created a 'two-tier' championship", quotations around "two-tier" should be removed
• "demanding physically. with drivers" period error
• "newer circuits; however, are" incorrect use of semicolon
• "covered with standardised Wheel Covers", "Wheel Covers" shouldn't be capitalised as it's not a proper noun.
• "used double wishbone or multilink front and rear" could be reworded to "used double wishbone or multilink at the front and rear"
• "first-ever female Team principal" I believe "Team principal" should be lowercased here
• "three power units per seasons" should just be "season"
• "with Lewis Hamilton, being" incorrectly placed comma
• "Drivers from the United Kingdom have been the most successful in the sport, with 20 championships among 10 drivers and 324 wins." Make sure to add an "As of 2025" or something similar.

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

• "Notably, the 75-year history of the World Championship has been dominated by European and white drivers" could be under MOS:EDITORIAL due to the source being just being Lewis Hamilton's biography that doesn't mention the racial and global inequalities described.
• "finding that 45% of emissions were from logistics and only 0.7% were from emissions from the cars themselves." I believe MOS:EDITORIAL may also apply here with the "only"
• "Currently, with 20 cars on the grid, Q1 runs for 18 minutes and eliminates the slowest five drivers." falls under MOS:RELTIME with the word "currently"
• "Most of the circuits currently in use are specially constructed for competition" see above
• "Hannah Schmitz currently holds the role of principal strategy engineer at Red Bull Racing." see above
• "The Autodromo Nazionale Monza, home to the Italian Grand Prix, is the oldest purpose-built track still in use today." see above, due to the phrase "in use today"

1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• Maintenance tag for citation needed
• "They have also contended that established teams..." needs citation.
• Citation 333 and 143's URLs do not work.
• Citation 45 is a note but is cited like it's a reference

1. C. It contains no original research:

• Spot checks!

• "Three-time World champion Nelson Piquet famously described racing in Monaco as "like riding a bicycle around your living room"." Citation 244 has no mention of the quote.
• "Notably, the 75-year history of the World Championship has been dominated by European and white drivers" Citation 306 doesn't mention these problems.
• "Under the current regulations, circuit layouts and lap distances may vary considerably, provided that each Grand Prix covers a total race distance of 300 km (190 mi) to 305 km (190 mi)." Citation 237 has mention of 305 km but none of 300 km.
• "Previously, the circuit owners controlled the income of the teams and negotiated with each individually; Ecclestone persuaded the teams to "hunt as a pack" through FOCA." Citation 20 matches
• "The cumulative television audience for the 2001 season, which was broadcast to 200 territories, was calculated to be 54 billion" matches citation 337
• "Each driver is limited to four engines during a championship season unless they drive for more than one team." No mention of this in citation 274
• "For most of the 21st century, Formula One cars have used double wishbone or multilink front and rear, with pushrod operated springs and dampers on the chassis, though there have been some notable exceptions. In 2009, the Red Bull Racing RB5 used a pullrod suspension at the rear." Most of this is not supported by citation 259, only supporting the last sentence.
• "Each driver is allotted four sets of intermediate tyres, three sets of wet-weather tyres and thirteen sets of dry-weather tyres for each race weekend. All unused tyres must be returned." Citation 103 matches the text.
• "For much of the sport's history...conditions later on." Matches citation 104
• "Drivers from the United Kingdom have been the most successful in the sport, with 20 championships among 10 drivers and 324 wins." Citation 174 only states that there are 324 wins but I couldn't find where it states there's 20 championships among 10 drivers and 324.
• "A major rule change in 2014 saw the 2.4-litre naturally aspirated V8 engines replaced by 1.6-litre turbocharged hybrid power units." Matches citation 62.
• "In 2019, 20% of the total Formula One viewership was female, and by 2022 this number had increased to 40%" Matches citation 315.
• "As of 2025, a driver must complete at least 90% of the race distance in order to receive points. Therefore, it is possible for a driver to receive points even if they retired before the end of the race." Matches citation 136, although it says "As of 2025" even though the source is from 2015.
• "It is estimated that the major teams spend between €100 and €200 million ($125–$225 million) per year per manufacturer on engines alone." This one also matches citation 139, but it's from 2007 and should be updated to reflect a more recent number.
• "Driving in Formula One is highly demanding physically. with drivers typically burning around 1,000 calories per hour and losing 2–4 kg (4–9 lb) of weight per race." Matches citation 175 and 176, although I'd recommend to change "weight" to "fluid" to match the source.

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. 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):

• As the previous GA review has said, the article is quite long for a wiki article. Although it has improved since the last GA review by being only 11,000 words rather than 13,000, it would still be best to shorten where you can and trim it to less than 10,000 if possible. Check WP:SIZERULE

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

2. Is it stable?

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

3. 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:

• See 1B (ignore the weird formatting issue I have no idea why that occurred and also don't know how to fix it...)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If i've made any mistakes or anything of the sort do tell me!

Fwedthebwead (talk)

• Fwedthebwead and MadelynnSienna, what is the status of this review? It has not been edited since early November and we are inching toward 2026. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Passed last month. Ctrl+F for "Ack,".--Launchballer 12:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. However, since I've pinged - MadelynnSienna, if you see this, the WP:GARP page indicates you have some pledge reviews oustanding for this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)