Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brabham BT19

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

---

Brabham BT19

Article on the Formula One (F1) racing car used by Australian Jack Brabham to win his third world drivers championship in 1966. Currently a GA, after an unusually thorough review. Has since had a thorough peer review from WikiProject Formula One and Wikiproject Automobile members, as well as input from non-F1 fans. (See Peer Review here and further comments on the talk page). Copyedited by several F1 editors not directly involved in the article, as well as user:Awadewit (who assures me she has no interest in the topic!) and I think I have gotten my head round the MoS. Thanks to all those who have contributed their time to read and criticise the article. I await comments with interest. Cheers. 4u1e 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - what more can I say. Davnel03 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Did I really say I had no interest? That is not what I meant at all - what I meant was I had no knowledge. I have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever. So sorry - that must have sounded so rude! I'm willing to learn about anything, so disregard any such statement, please, and accept my apology. Anyway, I have read this article several times now and although I cannot speak to its comprehensiveness (due to the aforementioned lack of knowledge), I do believe that it is well-written (clear enough that a novice such as myself could understand it!), well-researched, neutral, stable, and it follows all of the MOS guidelines that I know of. Awadewit | talk 11:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Aaagh! Not what I meant! You weren't being rude - my deep apologies for implying so. You have been nothing but courteous when asked for help. What I was (clumsily) trying to say was that you had no bias towards or deep knowledge of the topic, and so would be more likely to criticise properly (and in the good sense!). Thanks again for all your help, and you have nothing to apologise for. <chastises self severely> 4u1e 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support—This is very nicely written. Just a few things: to me, it's overlinked (repeated links, "one-off" doesn't need a dictionary link); 3-litre with hyphen as a double adjective, throughout; a few more commas would be good, especially when there are two "ands"; most people insert a space between "p." and the number. Can it be just B's surname after the first instance? Some readers won't know how to pronounce the word—you might consider showing them in parentheses at the top (Bravem? or IPA). Tony (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would keep the wikilink to "one-off" - I wasn't sure if it meant "the only one" or "only used once", so I used the wikilink to help me decide. Awadewit | talk 05:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we need to wikidict link all multisyllabic words. No, you're quite able to key it in yourself, aren't you? English speakers should either already know or be willing to look up fairly common items such as this one. And it sticks out particularly badly in the text—different color, is it? Tony (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'Comment II -- I can understand why one-off looks bright - your monobook sets wikilinks to a much darker look, which causes other links to show up differently. (ref: User:Tony1/Colours for linking) -- Guroadrunner 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- keep link to one-off, do not change "Litres" to "L" because that reverses the usefulness of context -- or change to U.S. gallons ;-). Guroadrunner 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Blimey - thanks for the support, Tony. The reason I've used JB's full name sometimes is because when the driver, the team and the car are all called 'Brabham', there's scope for confusion! Having said that, I haven't checked this systematically. 4u1e 09:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some of the 'Jack's. The rest are needed, I believe, to be unambiguous. 4u1e 10:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'Brabham' is pronounced 'Brabbum'. I'll try and get someone to render that in IPA. (edit - done 4u1e) 'One-off' I'm familiar with from an engineering context, so wasn't sure how widely understood the term was. Responses from other editors above may indicate that it's not that widely - as far as I know both Awadewit and GURoadrunner are reasonably well read! 4u1e 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(One other (native English-speaking) editor has indicated to me that they didn't understand one-off without the link either, so I suggest it should stay). 4u1e 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some duplicate wikilinks. I have left duplicates between the lead and the main text, because the current view seems to be that the lead is almost an independent piece. There are 'false' duplicates where I have pipelined links to the same race in different years. 4u1e 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"One-off" is a common term in English and should not be linked. Anyone who doesn't know what it and other common terms mean will need to look them up. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MOS says that you must abbreviate all converted units; "litre" will not do. Tony (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony: 'One-off' - I'm wondering if this is a US thing: all those who have said they don't recognise it are American. I'm British and you're Australian, I believe; could a US citizen confirm that it is in common use there? I'm happy to remove it if that's the case - I'd just like to be sure that it is widely understood by our likely audience. Not a sticking point for me.

Abbreviation of 'Litres': Yes, MoS says this and I will change it. I believe it's 'L' not 'l' though. Presumably because of the possibility of confusing 'I', '1' and 'l'. (Edit - done. 4u1e)

I know I haven't responded on hyphens (and your edit of them was reversed, albeit not by me). I will look at this (I like to understand what I am doing and why!). The form I've used is common, but not exclusive, usage in the sport, although that doesn't necessarily say much for its correctness. 4u1e 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Found it. at WP:HYPHEN. In the MoS. Duh. Will fix. 4u1e 07:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. 4u1e 09:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment without !vote. I am one of the Americans that 4u1e was talking about. This term is not used in America at all, and there is no simular term. I have a very strong and wide background in almost every type of motorsport. Remember that Wikipedia needs consider a world-view. One little link doesn't hurt anything if it will help a portion of the population. I do not comment on this FA because I am studying this FA to understand the process and what is expected from a Featured Article. I am close to attempting my first FA article in a driver in a different genre of motorsport (NASCAR) - the first of its kind. Royalbroil 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have rarely (if ever) heard the term "one-off". I assumed it was my lack of racing knowledge, not my Americanness. Perhaps that was a mistaken impression. Since the link can only help and does no harm, I see no reason to take it out. Awadewit | talk 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - As an American I've heard the term "one-off" only very occasionally, and I still don't understand the etymology, which generally makes me avoid the use of a term. I'd never be able to guess whether it had a more specific connotation for racing, etc. Even after looking at the Wiktionary definition I am unsure whether a car that "is a one-off design" is the only single car built with that design in the world, or if the design itself is simply somehow unusual or casually developed. I think it's very interesting that Americans have managed to scrape by without this phrase - many alternatives like "unique", "prototype", "concept car", "demonstration model", "experimental design" being used as substitutes, perhaps. Oh, and "custom built". Bottom line: I think the sentence should be reworded to make it clear what is meant. 70.15.116.59 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply I believe one-off comes from an engineering context, in the sense of a component of which only one is manufactured. You will also see 2-off etc on invoicing or component sheets. Changing the word might be the best solution, given that this relatively minor point is generating a vast amount of discussion! I have trouble with alternative phrases though - the ones you suggest give the wrong impression:

• Unique, true, but ambiguous as it could apply equally well to an unusual design (which is then manufactured many times) as an actual car.
• Prototype. Only one was built, but it was built to use, not as a proof of concept. Prototype also has a potentially confusing alternative meaning in sports car racing.
• Concept car. Definitely not! :-) That's an idea that mostly relates to styling, and to a rather lesser extent to engineering. Doesn't fit in racing context.
• Demonstration model - as for prototype above. You're not demonstrating anything, just trying to get something on the track and hopefully pick up points.
• Experimental design - again, not really. It was built to race, not as an experiment to see whether the concept would work.
• Custom built. Hmm, technically true, I suppose, but again the wrong impression. For me custom built cars are either the fibreglass monstrosities that whizz around town centres at night in the UK, the ones with exhausts only slightly smaller than the channel tunnel, or 'coach built' Rolls-Royce and Bentley cars from pre WWII.

I'll think on.... 4u1e 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've tweaked the words a bit. I've replaced 'one-off' with 'Only one BT19 was built' and tweaked words elsewhere. Thanks to 70.15.116.59 for suggesting a third way. 4u1e 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well-sourced, and appears factual. Tony's harassment is trivial; insofar as any of it matters, it is harmful. This is not the first time he has done this; if the unfortunate nom wishes, I will be happy to endorse an RfC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Many thanks for your support, Septentrionalis. I don't regard it as harassment. I asked Tony to express his views on the article specifically because I have seen him tear into other articles - I have a general concern that articles on less highbrow topics sometimes get an easy ride at FAC, and wanted to be sure that this article didn't (That may, of course, seem perverse :-)). All but one of his suggestions I either broadly agree with, if perhaps not to quite the same degree (use of full name and overlinking), or am neutral on. I am confident enough in my own writing, I think, not to slavishly implement a reviewer's every comment, if I believe it damages the article, but Wikipedia is a joint endeavour, so I actively seek out suggestions from others. I eventually got rid of 'one-off' because of the number of people who had commented here that they had no idea what it meant; Tony's contention (the one I did disagree with) was only that it didn't need wikilinking. Cheers. 4u1e ('The unfortunate nom'!) 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I have been watching this article for a while and I think it most certainly is of featured quality. Watching it not contributing to it; I take no credit for others' work. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.