User talk:4u1e/archive3

If Brabham's Maserati is shown as a private entry, shouldn't Stirling Moss's early Maserati races be the same? And his later Cooper and Lotus results be shown as 'Rob Walker'? Sorry if I've missed a discussion on this. -- Ian Dalziel 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need two circuit maps in the article? I removed the second one because we already have one in the infobox. Readro 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we move the more detailed one to the infobox and get rid of the other one? Would that work? Readro 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category you wrote, Category:A-Class Formula One articles, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. Eli Falk 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I failed it, I did eventually see that he was on wikibreak. Just renominate it again and I'll pass it right away, it looks good. For the 17-year-old, I thought that was common usage. When I googled the phrase it came up more often than 17 year old. It may be the second case for European English spellings, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's properly spelled in the U.S. Whatever you want to stick with is fine, I just wanted to point it out to be sure. --Nehrams2020 23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input into this article, 4u1e. It has GA status now. Regards, Adrian M. H. 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to run something by you. I read Martin Whitmarsh's comments in Autosport a few weeks ago subtly contrasting Räikkönen's detached attitude with Alonso's engaged attidtude. itv-f1.com has just quoted Jacques Villeneuve: "He reserved one of his most caustic assessments for Raikkonen, who he says is simply too one-dimensional a driver to deliver consistently top-drawer results. 'Kimi is overrated as a driver package, because apart from jumping in a car and going fast, he really doesn’t care about the rest'"[1] My point is I think the Whitmarsh comment alone is worthy of comment, but given the JV comment it is even more an issue. However I can see how some would disagree and would welcome any comments you had. Mark83 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If it's ever a toss up between taking a few days to reply or giving such a full answer, I'm happy to wait. :) Thanks for so much effort. I agree with what your saying. Another issue is the veracity of my two citations. Villeneuve is a highly erratic commentator in my opinion which taints his analysis somehwhat. As for Whitmarsh, he's open to the "well he would say that" defence - given that it seems from pre-season testing that Alonso & Hamilton's closest competitors seem to be Massa & Räikkönen! The alternative in-depth analysis of so many sources isn't one available to me right now either! Thanks again. As always, let me know if I can return the favour. Mark83 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Our general policy with FAC copyedits is to remove them from our list if they are not ready for a copyedit. Since you mentioned your article needs more work, I'm going to remove it for now. Please feel free to re-list it when you've resolved all other issues and are ready for copyedit. Galena11 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, I think head on only refers to the person doing the crashing. From what I read in Blick the truck driver just felt a large thump from the rear. He left the cab and found Regga's car embedded in his bumper. After all, you can charge head on into a wall, and unless that is some special wall you have there, it isn't charging back at you. If there were two parties you would have to say thay they drove head on into each other, so if you need to qualify it then it must make sense standing alone. Similar constructions can be used for crashing sideways (he slid sideways into the river...) or in reverse (crashed backwards into the armco...) both of which involve inanimate objects. Pyrope 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, English Language was never my best topic as school. But as for the collision, the Blick article explicity states that the truck was hit from behind. With a photo. Pyrope 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've asked for Toyota F1 to be assessed on the Motorsport assessment page. I'm going to do it solely against the Motorsport assessment guidelines. This is the 1st time I'm doing this so there might be some slight errors, I apologise if I make a few. Anyway, here we go.

Article progress grading scheme [

• v
• t
• e

]

Label	Criteria	Pass/Fail	Reasons Why
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Fail	More info needed.
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Fail	Introduction needs to be extended, however their are many headings and external refences. Could be peer-reviewed in the future. No copyright problems. I dislike the "Statistics" and "Drivers Past and Present" sections - they are not really needed. No copyright problems that I can see of.
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.	Pass	Satisfactory sections - no big spaces, OK to read.
B {{B-Class}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	Pass
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Pass
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Pass

Everybody has different opinions, so somebody else may rate Toyota F1 differently, but it seems like I've given it GA. I have not yet put the rating on the talk-page in case I've made a mistake. Hope this is useful, though! Reply with any queries. Davnel03 19:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now listed as B-Class on the article talkpage! Cheers! Davnel03 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will, but it was you in the first place that requested it to be assessed, and I thought it would be better to talk to you through our own talk pages. Davnel03 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for your advice!

I'll try the methods out. Lradrama 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you have added some references to Henry (1985) to the Brabham page back in December 2006. It seems that some of the content (including footnotes) has been copied to the Alfa Romeo in motorsport page. The question I have is this, do the references to Henry (1985) in the Alfa Romeo in motorsport page, match the same source that can be seen in this edit in the Brabham page. In other words, can I assume it is correct to add the following book to the References section of the Alfa Romeo in motorsport page?

• Henry, Alan (1985). Brabham, the Grand Prix Cars. Osprey. ISBN 0-905138-36-8

Thanks in advance. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright is held by Barry Boor who has kindly allowed their use on Wikipedia." - that is insufficient because Wikipedia is mirrored by many other websites (who may or may not be commercial operations by the way). If you wish to upload them, you should convince Mr Boor to release them under a free license such as {{gfdl}} or one at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. enochlau (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also happened to be listed at on CAT:CSD under WP:CSD I3. If you can point to where he has granted permission, not specific to Wikipedia, then I am happy to undelete them, but for the time being, they do fall under the CSD I3, and will remain deleted. Sure you can't convince him to release them under the GFDL? It practically doesn't take any more rights away from him compared with the license the images had, and will save everyone a lot of trouble. enochlau (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, and I hope it comes out well. enochlau (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for doing what other users have done and just completely removed the block of text that I copied. I'm going to start writing out my own reports for other races - if you want to try the same you can. You might want to watch the Pacific page, in case somebody reverts the edits. Davnel03 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just noticed you've made a ton of edits to this page - I'm just curious were you got all this information from as I want to create one or two car articles, but fear, like with Wolf WR7 that they'll br deleted. Which websites did you get this info from? Davnel03 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I'll probably try and get a clear picture of the car's specification before inserting it into a article! Davnel03 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing your views on the matter. You see, it seemed the most obvious one to replicate for the time being, but seen as it's caused such an uproar, it'll probably go within a few days.

I'll probably get the 'Sponsorship' section improved next - it looks pathetic being a small paragraph and could be so much more. Thanks Lradrama 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks (yes, I admit, 'uproar' was rather a strong word to use...  ;-) ) Lradrama 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes you put on the Toyota F1 talk page. Lradrama 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brabham BT19, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your in-depth look at Georgie. When I get the time to edit it thoroughly, I'll let you know so you can give it another look. Thanks again.--Eva ^bd 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to touch that with a 10 inch pole. Foot, I mean, 10 foot pole. *blink* --Otheus 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers 4u1e, although I much prefer a 'pat on the back'. Besides I enjoy writing articles and don't really expect being praised (much) for something I enjoy. But that doesn't mean to say I don't appreciate the kindness ;-). Anyway, may I remind you that it was you who helped out with Damon Hill and also the Alain Prost copy-vio problem - Oh and for those niggly parts on Tom Pryce.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed broken links Buc 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've justy been though all ref in the aricle. I've fixed or removed brocken links and changed the sourses of some. There are still some I don't which I couldn't find anything else for [2] #35 [3] #77 [4] #79

The races in question. Per FAC feedback. Buc 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I know I didn't quite understand it either. Buc 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a discussion's come up on the talk page about the edits you made [5] to the collision section on the 97 Euro GP page. Just thought I'd let you know in case you aren't watching the page. Regards, AlexJ 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Where are the best places to get references and footnotes from (regarding the Toyota F1 article? I think it's best to get some advice before ploughing on down any old road... Thanks Lradrama 09:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I interpret this silence as a sign that I've said something wrong? Lradrama 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! What a relief! I knew really, that, even if I had said anything wrong, you would've explained to me what it was. Thanks very much for the links. Much appreciated, and good luck with your Michael Schumacher work. Lradrama 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar in recognition of your consistent help and assistance during my first few months of editing Wikipedia. You have been my greatest source of assistance, and you've helped me so much in my work on the Toyota F1 article. I can't tell you how much I appreciate this. Many thanks Lradrama 11:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome (and always will be) :-) Lradrama 11:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Brabham BT19 and placed it on hold. It is almost there, for sure - nice work!

I'm still working on your concerns wtih 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. I hope to be able to fix everything. Johntex\^talk 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello 4u1e, I have attempted to address all the points raised in your initial GA review. I have dramatically shortened several of the game summaries, including splitting off the Texas A&M game into its own article. The article is now about 25kb smaller.

I left more notes on the article talk page.

Please let me know if any of these areas still need work and/or if you have any additional concerns. I imagine you may want to give it a fresh read.

Thanks again, Johntex\^talk 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4u1e, I just want to thank you again for taking on the daunting task of reviewing 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. It is definitely better because of your review.

I am going to take a deep breath and then try to push on to FA. I know the standards there are even tougher, but I had some luck once before so I think with continued help from reviewers such as yourself that I can ultimately succeed.

I have Brabham BT19 watchlisted but feel free to drop me a note when the F1 group opines about that race box and legend issue. Thanks again, Johntex\^talk 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects have zero jurisdiction to dictate a person's nationality. WP:MOSBIO makes it crystal clear that nationality should be stated in the intro. --Mais oui! 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish implies British; however, the reverse is not true. Scottish is most certainly not a description of one's ethnicity. Scotland is a civic nation, not an ethnic one. You say that all the articles already state that they are Scottish, but that is not in fact the case: they say that they are "from Scotland". The English language has a perfectly good, commonly-used word for someone or something from Scotland: "Scottish". At Wikipedia, every other occupation uses it. Why on earth should F1 drivers suddenly be the only ones stripped of their nationality?

Nationality is a quality of something from a nation. That Scotland is a nation, with its own legal system recognised in private and public international law, is well attested. Further, we will have no problem finding references stating the nationality of Stewart or Coulthard as being Scottish. I will add those references if their nationality is brought into question in any way. --Mais oui! 16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scotland and the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board would have appreciated it if another WikiProject had not unilaterally decreed that the nationality of some of our most respected sporting heroes be whitewashed from Wikipedia. Architects, golfers, bloggers, lawyers, swimmers, singers, actors, cyclists, politicians and poets are all universally described as Scottish. What on earth makes you think that just because certain Scots pursue a career within motor-racing that they suddenly have to have their nationality obscured? --Mais oui! 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my initial thoughts are that Mais oui! is totally out of line accusing you of failing to discuss it at WP Scotland or any other page. At the most fundamental level we're talking about the infobox. What infobox? Template:F1 driver. It is totally unreasonable for a user in particular or WP:F1 in general to think of every single Wikiproject who may have an interest in the use of the infobox. Having said that as soon as he raised it with you it seems you went out of your way to discuss it, so no one can fault you there.

But back to the infobox; it IS an F1 infobox and we are abiding by the FIA conventions by putting the British flag there. Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish drivers are not recognised as such by the Formula One authorities - they are British first. Mark83 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree?? Have a look at the pages I reverted. My edit summaries explained the consensus. Have a look at the pages M100 reverted - edit war. Mark83 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, OK. Like I say, pretty dramatic difference - no edits from Mais oui! on my reverts and edit wars on M100's reverts and I stand by my comments that it's because he used provocative edits summaries. Anyway, thanks for your comments regarding my intervention(s). btw, happy to help! I remember you asking if I could help review an article, if you want any more assistance I'm happy to help that way too. Mark83 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Mais oui! has a POV agenda and will not listen to reason or rational argument. If what he says were true about ethnicity and "civic nationality", then we would be using "nationalities" such as Bavarian, Virginian or British Columbian in Wikipedia articles! Please do not let him undermine the Wikipedia project with his prejudiced nationality agenda.

Thanks for letting me know. Mark83 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently importing a load of photos from flickr (see here for what's been done so far) and have come across this [6]. As Wikipedia's resident Brabham expert, I figured you're probably the person to ask to identify it ;). If you can give Model and Year that'd be great. Thanks, AlexJ 12:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AlexJ 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate the article for Good Article status. Please comment if you disagree. Remember, this is not for Featured Article status, so it doesn't have to be perfect. Royalbroil 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for my name to be put down. I've got some other books I can enter too, when I have time. As for Forti, it could do with another editor's opinion, so feel free to help out!--Diniz 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to find any material about the smaller cars beyond the standard list of specifications, but I've found a few snippets which suggest reasons for unreliability and lack of performance:

A season which suffered immeasurably from the team's need to run a second car for financial reasons. (p. 20)

The inevitable shortcomings of being the number 2 in a small team. (p. 20)

Huub Rothengatter bought a drive in the second Zakspeed, a move which produced little except for added pressure on Palmer's racing programme. (p. 39)

Smaller and lighter [than the 841] - tighter packaging? New air duct for revised turbo installation. Revised electronics by Bosch. New suspension...new exhaust system. - teething problems?

[The team had] made a lot of progress on throttle response...avoiding any recurrence of the turbo surge encountered at Rio. (p. 93)

A tight-lipped Jonathan Palmer maintained a diplomatic silence when questioned about the Zakspeed team's decision to run at second car for Huub Rothengatter. (p. 99)

Erich Zakowski entered a second car for Huub Rothengatter, a move which meant Jonathan Palmer no longer had a spare car. (p. 99)

Experimentation with carbon-fibre brakes from Spa onwards. (p. 115)

Continued experimentation with engines with three injectors per cylinder. (p. 147)

Switch from KKK to Garrett turbos mid-season. (p. 163)

A list of failures/problems referred to:

Piston failure, overheating battery-->misfire, screw dropping out of wastegate (Brazil practice)

Cracked airbox (Brazil race)

Collision with Alan Jones (Jerez race)

Severe misfire, suspension failure (Imola practice)

Failure for engine to fire up, turbo failure, brakes (Imola race)

Lack of downforce, poor throttle response (Spa practice)

Boost gauge falling out of dashboard, faulty alternator, broken rev-counter, sticking throttle, piston failure, slack alternator belt (Spa race)

Lack of boost, engine failure (Canada practice)

Failure for engine to fire up, fuel shortage, engine failure (Canada race)

Crown wheel and pinion, blown turbo, gearbox problems (Detroit practice)

Electrical failure (Detroit race)

Steering vibration (Paul Ricard practice)

Puncture, collision with Johhny Dumfries, engine failure (Paul Ricard race)

Turbo problems, faulty fire extinguisher valve (Brands Hatch practice)

Crash at first start, engine failure (Brands Hatch race)

Engine failure, shortage of qualifying turbos (Hockenheim practice)

Valvegear breakage, gearbox failure (Hockenheim race)

Poor engine response (Hungary practice)

Smashed oil cooler, overheating brakes (Hungary race)

Engine failure (Austria race)

Misfire, gear selection problems (Monza practice)

Broken alternator, engine failure (Monza race)

Engine failures (Estoril practice)

Transmission failure (Estoril race)

Sticking wastegate valve, sheared wheel-retaining stud-->crash, lack of spare car (Mexico practice)

Fuel consumption problems, faulty computer display (Mexico race)

Poor throttle response, lack of grip, engine and gearbox failures (Adelaide practice)

Broken rear underbody, poor fuel consumption, poor throttle response, rear suspension failure (Adelaide race)

I hope this helps!--Diniz (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder on Roger Federer. Though there was no action, i was hoping that the GA nominator would work on the references portion but the same did not happen. I have marked "GA failed" for now. --Kalyan 14:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find unstoppable, stunning and misery (twice), so can you tell me where about they are, or at lease write the sentence that they are in so that I know! Davnel03 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Davnel03 18:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, sorry about the previous problems between us two. Can we just wipe the slate clean? Thanks. Davnel03 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished all of the concerns that you noticed with the Malaysia article. Thanks! Davnel03 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note on the talk page before nominating. No one replied. Buc 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is the referencing. You can find out why at Talk:Mario_Andretti#GA_on_hold. I ask that you cite and address the Formula One items, and I have marked them. Royalbroil 03:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the message. In regards to you first point its standard style policy to add a reference directly after any quotation - see [[7]]. Although the article might be referenced at the end of the paragraph its best just to mark the direct source of the quote. In regards to your second points, it not so much pov (I should of been more clearer) but rather style and clarification. By this I mean in what way is the Lotus 69 revolutionary? Especially sincw what ground effect is is not established. I think you should change the wording of revolutionary ground effect, or at least explain A.) why its revolutonary and B.) what it is. Also I didnt like the term bitter sweet victory as its a very subjective judgement. You could write it to say he won the championship despite the death of his teamate? I should of been more clearer. Hope thats all any probs message again. LordHarris 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you completed edits to the article? Would you look over the question that I posted to you and LordHarris on Andretti's talk page asking for additional description? Royalbroil 03:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mario Andretti nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Mario Andretti for eventual comments about the article. Well done! LordHarris 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the National Sprint Car Hall of Fame biography that I found while sourcing his inclusion in the Hall of Fame to significantly expand the article. It cleared up somethings that we were wondering about, including his USAC stock car history vs USAC dirt cars. It also made it clear that one of our sources had his ARDC and URC history wrong. Looking back, it doesn't make sense that he would race in sprint cars then midget cars, as that is backwards. I created a new sections on his USAC stock car career and USAC sprint cars. His early career is well documented in the source, and I urge you to read the source and see if there is anything that I missed. Please make sure that I kept the article NPOV, etc. Royalbroil 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Copersucar.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 4u1e. I just noticed that you edited the Brian Hart article with an edit that repeated one from an anon that I interpreted at the time as subtle date-change vandalism and reverted. I put two and two together when I remembered that you often edit without logging in. Sorry if I reverted a genuine edit from you. It didn't tally with a source in my possession (a very average 1990s F1 encyclopædia), but I think you are probably correct, actually. Regards, Adrian M. H. 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. I'd love to be able to improve that article (it's a bit brief and not very well referenced at the moment) but as you have probably found, it's difficult to find any really good sources about Brian Hart. Regards, Adrian M. H. 10:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4u1e! I have made a full F1 results table for the Brabham works team in my sandbox. I thought I should check with Wikipedia's resident Brabham expert to make sure it is fully correct before proceeding. ;)--Diniz (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you said recently that you were busy in real life and not contributing to Wikipedia as much, so I'll save you the trouble and add it to the article (as a separate page).--Diniz (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used The Great Encyclopedia of Formula 1 for general guidance, 2001 Formula One Annual (which has an archive of old results at the back) for the results, cross-referencing with the existing table in Brabham and this helpful website: [8]. Good luck with fixing your tap - I'm going to university in a month or so, so I'll have to cut back on wikipedia as well whilst I move and settle in!--Diniz (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the issue. I have commented at WT:F1.--Diniz (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4u1e, firstly superb work on the Brabham BT19 article, and well done on getting it to GA status (I think its the only car article WP:F1 has under GA level!). I was thinking of putting it under Peer review to see what needs to be done before a final push to FA level. Do you think it would need to go under peer review before FA nomination. If you think it does need a peer review, should we put the article under peer review now and see what feedback we get? Good work on the article so far. Davnel03 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've mentioned you in the peer review, as your the one that's put in the effort to get the article this far. I'll try and respond to the comments, but if I'm not editing at that time, could you try and respond? Hopefully we'll get a FA out of all of this! :) Davnel03 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily for me, I have the automated peer review javascript, so I'll use that to review the articles!Davnel03 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your thorough review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Alexander Graham Bell/archive1. I was impressed and wondered if you had the time and inclination to review an article I have written, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters. (It's on a book by Mary Wollstonecraft). I would, of course, be willing either to review or copy edit an article for you in return. Here is one peer review that I did recently and here are a couple of examples of some quick copy editing work that I did a few days ago - [9], [10]. Awadewit | talk 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your peer review! I have attempted to address your concerns. Whenever you have a moment, would you mind looking over the changes to see if they have fixed the problems you pointed out? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never seen such an in-depth review of an article, not even at WP:FAC. Thanks a lot! I'll have a look at Brabham BT19 and leave some comments. I'm only semi-active because I'm really busy this year but I should be finished by this weekend. Thanks again, James086^{Talk | Email} 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give you a barnstar for all the work you've done with the F1 WikiProject. You are doing a lot of work and are committed to the project, and deserve recognition. Guroadrunner —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:29, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am copy editing Brabham BT19, however I do not know if I will be of any assistance as I know nothing at all about racing. I have added a lot of hidden comments and questions. I didn't want to change something I know nothing about. Disregard them, if they are silly questions. They are best read with something like widEd which color codes the various types of edits. Awadewit | talk 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article seems to carry more information than other sites I think most can be missed out; but I liked the ABC interview and the first link with the images. I didn,t view flickr but I have linked to images there for other articles- often there are loads- i find it can be a neat link. Bobbacon 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e thanks for your message re the Brabham racing colours and my comments (June 20) and in the discussion - sorry for the delay.

Quote: "user:DeafCom has identified this, which states that the green and gold were in general unofficial colours prior to 1984, and became 'Australia's official colours' after that date. Note that did take some digging - even emailed Sir Jack - but nothing as yet :)

your other questions were: 1.Were Australia's colours in motor racing really green and gold at the time? Basically - no. But do u mean internationally or domestic? The Tasman series in the 60's (which was quite often run in the off season to F1 and included the current at the time F1 drivers like Moss etc in NZ and Aus)?

2.If Green & Gold were Australia's colours, how come Team Lotus raced in a very similar livery to Brabham (Green with gold trim on nose)? as stated - not until 1984 were the green and gold 'officially' Australian 'sporting' colours. Therefore Lotus could have raced using the same. Due to Sponsorship in the 1970's - the use of 'national' colours used to denote the teams/cars has since gone by the wayside. It is still used though with Ferrari (red) and Mercedes involvement with McLaren (silver).

Cheers - user:DeafCom —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeafCom (talk • contribs) 13:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to congratulate you on a good copyedit, and to let you know that I took the liberty of adding your name as copyeditor to the WP:LoCE template on the talk page. Happy editing, Cricketgirl 12:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't help on the "old nail" thing. It might be a corruption of "tough as nails" and "tough as old boots", but I really can't think of anything beyond that. Hope you find an explanation! Cricketgirl 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post comments on the talkpage per the criteria. Apologises I haven't been helping with the Peer Review that much. Davnel03 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this. Feel free to add anything. Davnel03 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the comments made. Thanks. Davnel03 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem and thanks for the great work you have already done on the article. I've been a bit busy myself too and haven't had the time to look for those figures about Manta/Quattro/037 that I promised to try to dig up. Prolog 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I probably will look at that when I have a minute. Although, Pyrope's comments are good, some of his comments come across to me as if he's saying "The article's never going to be a featured article, so get over it" type of word. That's my aim though, to try, at some point, to get the article to FA status, whether it's next week, next month, or four months time. I've been working on the article for some time. This tool (type in 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix when it comes up), shows that I've made 92 edits to the article compared to the next best 10. That's how much I want the article to somehow, someway get to FA status. Thanks, hey, how's the push going with Brabham BT19, if Malaysia never gets FA, I hope Brabham BT19 does! Davnel03 09:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Glad to. DH85868993 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help as well. And thanks for the offer to have a look at the BAE Systems FAC, I'd be very greatful for comments (good or bad!) Mark83 11:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave some comments on it a little while back at the PR. I'll have a look through it again and see if I can spot anything else. AlexJ 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some comments at Talk:Brabham BT19. Thanks very much for your help so far with BAE Systems. Mark83 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I missed during my review was the colours used on the NC table of results - it doesn't correspond to the F1 key. Is there a meaning to the colours currently used? AlexJ 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, all your comments have been very constructive. Thank you for them.

Re. Your concerns about the 'Between 1945 and 1999, the company became one of the world's most important defence contractors' paragraph: You said there was something that bugged you about it. I've rewritten it - all the Marconi info. is now together rather than fragmented through the paragraph. Could you see how it reads now? Mark83 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well! Emerson Fittipaldi has, however, Italian origins and cannot be denied it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visor87 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say that Emerson Fittipaldi has only Italian origins, he can have Russian and Polish origins too, but Fittipaldi is an Italian last name, especially diffused in the southern of Italy.

Thank you very much! Your review was extremely helpful in getting the article where it needed to be. You deserve a lot of the credit for holding my feet to the fire! Best, Johntex\^talk 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brabham91.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]