Talk:2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

No longer a stub?

Well, the amount of organisation in this article... 81.178.165.57 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a start, more or less - these articles never amount to much before the race takes place. Still not convinced this one will... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It won't! Mjroots (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources

Here I've got more sources for the last decision about this race.

I don't have time to add them, would be nice if someone else did.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/uk-motor-racing-bahrain-idUSLNE75704E20110608 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/06/07/motorsport.F1.mosley.bahrain/ http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/bahrain-grand-prix-not-on-after-teams-object/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/13694628.stm http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/06/bahrain-formula-1-boss-says-grand-prix-postponed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed CJ (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The "sources" you give are news items that repeat the opinion of Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone. While these opinions are influential they are not definitive. I would be looking for a statement from the FIA or other organisation given at a press conference rather than an interview. Britmax (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The current situation (9/6/11)

I've removed some parts of the article that claim the race is totally off despite the FIA's insistence that it is still on. It felt a bit too speculative. The article does cite Rule 66, which has not been followed up on, but I'm pretty sure FOTA won't actually vote on the issue until they actually have a meeting about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Should cancelled F1/WDC events have their own category?

Just curious. --TheHande (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. They should also have a different colour than "not held" on the lists; since they were actually scheduled or contracted, whereas "not held" could indicate the interval between holding contracts for races. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. What would be in the category? Just 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix (noting that we don't have articles for the 1955 French, German, Spanish and Swiss Grands Prix, which as far as I am aware are the only other races to have been cancelled after having been on the official calendar). I don't see much point having a category for one article. DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a very obscure distinction, only leant credence because of WP:Recentism. Alterring colour of Not Held is not neccessary either. These tables should not be a rainbow. --Falcadore (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A cancelled scheduled race is different from a period of the race not existing. There's a functional difference and the fact that it was cancelled means there's information about the cancellation around. For years where there was no contracted race, no such information would be available, so it is not an obscure distinction. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There are less than half-a-dozen such examples over the history of F1, and only one actually with an article. Need more than one for an independant category really. It could be theoretically grouped with 1980 Spanish Grand Prix and 1981 South African Grand Prix as cancelled World Championship races. --Falcadore (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

2012 edition

The information about the 2012 edition should be in the 2012 article, not the 2011 article. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I put it in the 2011 page, because the creation of a 2012 race page was not justified at the time. Now that there is more information available, I've moved it over. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330071339/http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8257321 to http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8257321
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604112245/http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/13647475.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula_one/13647475.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Bahrain Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 05:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. Please inform me regarding any problems. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Section-wise Assessment

After an initial review, the article looks very good. All sources are fine, prose is clear, and article is stable. Though it is short and lacks good images (considering the nature of the article), it is fine. Anyways, I'll be doing a proper review below. There will be some important corrections needed.

Lead Section

• 'On 3 June, it was announced that the race would be held on 30 October, thus making it round 17 of the 20 to be held during 2011.' Could this sentence be made more clear?
  • Re-worded by User:HumanBodyPiloter5 (Special:Diff/1064071135). SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• This sumarizes the further content, which have the required citations. So citations are not needed here. It is clear, consise, and very well-written.

Postponment

• 'Ecclestone stated that....' It would not be necessary to link the protests again, for it has already been done before and is understood.
  • Resolved. (Special:Diff/1064261698) SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Otherwise, the section is fine

Provisional reinstatement and cancellation

• I made a small grammatical correction (added a comma)
• I feel this section can be broken into a couple of paragraphs.
  • This section is now over 4 paragraphs rather than just the two. (Special:Diff/1064261698) SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

See Also

• I feel other articles (e.g. Bahrain Grand Prix) can be added.
  • Added links to 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests, Background of the 2011 Bahraini uprising, Bahrain Grand Prix and Timeline of the 2011 Bahraini uprising. (Special:Diff/1064261698) SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

On Hold For Improvements

@SSSB, This article is put  On hold for a time period of 3 days. Please help make the required improvements, after which a decision can be taken. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg: Thank you for taking this on. I think I've addressed all the concerns you raised. SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Final Decision

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes, it is clear, concise, precise, and well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	👍
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All statements are backed by reliable sources.
	2b. 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).	The sources are accurate and reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	👍
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused and to-the-point
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is written from a neutral perspective
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images have no issues
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is  Passed.

Thanks SSSB for your contributions. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg: thank you for the speedy review! SSSB (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)