Wikipedia:Featured article review/Brabham/archive1

Brabham

Brabham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Brabham
• Featured article candidates/Brabham BT19

• Featured article review/Brabham/archive1

Notified: 4u1e, DH85868993, Pyrope, WP Motorsport, WP Formula One, WP Australia, WP Automobiles, talk notifications 2021-01-18 2021-10-31

As mentioned in the talk page notification that is almost a year old, this 2006 Featured article has considerable uncited text, appears not to have been updated since 2010, and there are many statements that do not have as of dates or time context, yet use older sources. Z1720 points out "there is no post-2015 information in the history section. I am also concerned about WP:OVERSECTION in the Racing History - other section". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Another point for consideration: the section "Brabham Racing (2014–)" is nonsense, based solely on an old announcement. Announcements in themselves are not notable, the actual event is. Since it didn't come to fruition, this entire section is fluff and should be removed. IMO the lead should even revert to the past tense (Brabham was...) since there is little to suggest that this currently is an active organization. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The story of this organisation essentially ends in 1992. Anything after that is probably irrelevant, perhaps beyond a few notes about what any individuals who were involved with Brabham went on to do after that time. I don't think it matters if this article relies on older sources (provided they are reliable), as there is very little to say about the team after 1992. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, the article is called Brabham, not Motor Racing Developments. The later use of the name Brabham is relevant, but I agree the structure needs to be reconsidered. I would move the post-1992 events to a new section like "Revival attempts". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a section called "Revival attempts" might be more suitable, but it needs to be concrete. The 2014 speculative announcement by a stakeholder is nothing more than marketing buzz (unfortunately this is a problem across WP – many editors fall for this, quickly adding such fluff because it is repeated over and over in the media). WP:CRYSTAL says: "take special care to avoid advertising", "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is ... almost certain to take place", and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product (or business) announcements". Since no actual revival has taken place, the lead should be in the past tense. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Brabham Racing is actually active in European GT racing with the BT62 and BT63, so in this case it's not a matter of marketing fluff but just out-of-date. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A brief mention of the fact that Jack Brabham's son has run a similarly named team could be warranted if suitable sourcing was available. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've given it a go, listing the team's plans and its entries briefly. Sourcing could do with a bit of work if it was in a standalone article but I think it's enough to confirm that the name has been used by successor organisations. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason why “Brabham” is used as the article title is WP:COMMON. The lead and the infobox however make it clear that the article does deal with Motor Racing Developments specifically.Tvx1 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, using the common name invites coverage of how that common name has later been used. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• MOS:SANDWICHing needs to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how much the Brabham Racing Organisation logo adds to this article or how necessary its inclusion is (even if it probably is fair use). Would anyone object to it being removed? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Punctuation per MOS:CAPTIONS (uses punc when it should not, and lacks punc when it should have). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Could one of the editors who know the topic please install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to check for MOS:OVERLINK? Whether links should be repeated is often a judgement call … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Does anyone have any of the book sources? It appears as if citations are put at the end of paras where not everything in the para is in the source. I (temporarily) altered some paras as indications, but this makes me worry about original research relative to book sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@HumanBodyPiloter5, Tvx1, and 5225C: I have resolved the image issues, but there are sourcing matters that need to be looked at (does anyone have the books)? And overlinking needs to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having looked over the article I can't really see the issues this article has getting resolved unless someone has access to the books. Sadly I don't think this article is going to be able to be kept at a featured level without that. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that this article is unlikely to maintain featured status unless someone has the books. At this point, it is unclear which parts of any of the paragraphs can be sourced to the books cited. We should probably be proceeding to the FARC stage here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have any of the books already cited, but I do have a copy of the more recent Brabham (Tony Davis, Ákos Armont) which should be able to verify some details. I don't have the time to sift through the article but if you tag passages of concern I'm happy to check if they're in it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also, being in Australia I'm happy to check the libraries for copies if necessary, but I think it's worth giving it a shot with alternative sources. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• The article has a mixed citation style (some parenthetical, now deprecated) and others using ref tags, and some of the parentheticals are not listed as sources. I cannot decipher from which source this comes, so an “as of” date can be added, or the reader can check whether it is still true. And the prose is repetitive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Brabham became the first man to win a Formula One world championship race in a car bearing his own name. Only his former teammate, Bruce McLaren, has since matched the achievement. It was the first in a run of four straight wins for the Australian veteran. Brabham won his third title in 1966, becoming the only driver to win the Formula One World Championship in a car carrying his own name (cf Surtees, Hill and Fittipaldi Automotive).

• Middlebridge needs a link, even if WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

5225C what makes this a reliable source, and what makes it high enough quality for a Featured article? Add which parts of that para is it citing? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Which source are you asking about? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  https://web.archive.org/web/20080725091350/http://f1rejects.com/drivers/amati/biography.html#f1 It doesn't provide anything upon which to base reliability, or high quality, and I'm wondering which piece of the para it verifies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I just copied it from Amati's article since it apparently sourced that claim (3 DNQs). Replaced with another Motor Sport source. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Featured articles require higher quality sources. The article was originally written to some books that we should be using. We have to take care not to source the article to mirrors that wrote their content after this article was written in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

But there's also a problem with the second source in that diff. This article was featured in 2006, and that article was written in 2017. Is it a high quality source? What part of the para is it verifying? How do we know it's not mirroring Wikipedia? We should be checking the original books used rather than retrofitting lower quality sources to a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Motor Sport is the definition of a high quality motorsports source. If you would like to challenge one of the best-established and well-respected publications in motorsport then I'm going to have to ask for some more detailed reasoning. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• I would concur there. Motor Sport magazine is a highly-respected outlet that's been running for nearly a century. It's highly unlikely that they would just copy stuff from Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, lost my battery midway on that one. OK, that source is citing one minor part of the para; so good. The earlier source is not the kind we should be adding to FAs (but I gather it is gone now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I understand, that was a careless mistake on my part. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  No prob; can we slow down and locate the books? My concerns are beyond individual sentences here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

5225C, we're going backwards here. If you remove a cn tag from an entire paragraph, while adding a source that only cites one sentence, we're going to end up worse off than we were before we started, because we won't know what is cited and what is not. You've done that twice. This source, for example, does not mention the Argentine. What are you citing with the second citation? Instead of removing a cn tag, you should be moving it so we know what still remains to be cited. Since most of it theoretically came from the books originally cited, might it not be better to locate them before retrofitting partial citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I work on a claim-by-claim basis when sourcing, which after all is how this is meant to be done. When I see a cn tag, I source the claim that has been tagged. If you would like me to find sources, which I am willing and eager to do, then I ask you be more specific with what you want sourced. If you intend to use in-line clean-up tags, then you need to use them to indicate claims in line. Otherwise you should be using clean-up banners. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As I explained above, I separated entire paragraphs that were unsourced. When you remove a cn from an entire uncited paragraph, and cite only the last sentence in that paragraph, we are left with the impression that the citation applies to the entire sentence. Did you see my post on this page at 22:03 describing the problem ? A cn at the end of an uncited paragraph means the entire para is uncited. If you remove it, cite the entire para. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)