Talk:Mark Webber (racing driver)

Requested move 10 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Mark Webber → Mark Webber (racing driver) – no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC [1] Joeykai (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support and make DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support (on the condition that Mark Webber (disambiguation) moves to Mark Webber or the Mark Webber redirects to Mark Webber (disambiguation); because if that doesn't happen, then this move makes no difference to the situation) per WP:10YEARTEST, Mark Webber (actor) is still likely to be atracting sufficently many views that there still won't be a primary topic. SSSB (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support and move Mark Webber (actor) to Mark Webber. Pageviews show that the actor page gets more views than the driver article, even with the disadvantage of the basename pointing to the driver page. When we make the switch, the actor will be even more clearly the primarytopic. Either way, the basename should not remain a redirect to the driver page after whichever move is made. Dohn joe (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support and move Mark Webber (disambiguation) here, although the actor does get more views (27,756) than the racing driver (24,793) its close and PT swaps can be problematic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support moving this article to Mark Webber (racing driver) and Mark Webber (disambiguation) to Mark Webber. There clearly isn't a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The racing driver appears to attract slightly more pageviews than the actor from what I'm seeing, but there's very little in it between them. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mark Webber (racing driver)/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this article shortly. If you intend for this to be an FAC, please post below and I will conduct a more thorough, pre-FAC review. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Here are some comments about the article:

General

• The article suffers from too much WP:OVERSECTION. Typically, a section should be 3-4 paragraphs long. The subheadings (years) for "Minardi and Jaguar (2002–2004)", Williams (2005–2006), and "World Endurance Championship stint with Porsche (2014–2016)" should be removed, and the "Red Bull Racing (2007–2013)" divided into two subheadings (or summarised into 3-4 paragraphs)
• Before I started reading the article, I suspected that some information could be summarised or removed.

Lede

• "Webber began karting at between 12 and 13" -> Webber began karting at age 12 or 13
• "Webber began karting at between 12 and 13 and achieved early success," What kind of success? Describe (if notable for the lede) or remove the mention of success (if not notable.)

Early and personal life

• "He has an elder sister." Who is this referring to? Clarify in the article.
• "He also worked a variety of other jobs such as an apprentice plumber." What are some of these other various jobs?

Early racing career

• "He began driving motorbikes on weekends" -> "Webber began driving" Often when there's a new paragraph the noun needs to be reintroduced before pronouns can be used as replacements again. There's a couple of instances of this.
• "Webber's father decided to lease his petrol station" -> "Webber's father leased his petrol station"

• "and worked heavily to fund his son's karting activities." Where did he work?
• "He opted for karting," Who opted for karting? Pronouns can be used if the subject of the sentence is the same as the previous sentences. In this case, the previous sentence did not focus on Webber, so this sentence needs to specify that it is talking about Webber
• "With a team of three mechanics, Webber achieved a season-high third at Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit for 14th in the Drivers' Championship with 30 points and second in the Rookie of the Year standings." Why is it important to mention that his team had three mechanics?
• "In late 1994, Webber's father had to decide whether to pay for another year of racing for his son or find sponsorship. He asked English-born media officer Ann Neal to locate sponsorship for Webber..." -> "In late 1994, Webber's father asked English-born..." I do not know why it is noteworthy that the father decided between paying for more racing or sponsorship, so I think it can be removed.
• "In October 1995,[16] he moved to the London suburb of Hainault,[3][20] entering the Formula Ford Festival at Brands Hatch with the Van Diemen factory team after talking to team owner Ralph Firman Sr. and Neal, more sponsorship funding and reviewing potential career path charts" I suggest either removing the second half of this sentence (everything beyond after talking to team owner") because it is normal for a player to talk to their team and coaches, or flip the sentence so that it is chronological.
• "He won four times in the British series,[23] for second behind teammate Kristian Kolby," What is meant when he won four times, but came second behind their teammate?
• "The funding gap put Webber's season" What is meant by funding gap?

I'm going to pause there and give some time to fix up the concerns that I outlined. Once the above are addressed, including the bigger issues of oversection and pronoun use throughout the article, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: I have made changes to the article based on all of the points made above so far. As for FAC, it is something I am considering for the article in the future MWright96 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick comment - the "Multi 21" controversy is desribed, but doesn't include the term. Given this is an infamous incident, for completeness should the term not be included when describing the incident. Mark83 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Mark83: Added in term and clarified its meaning MWright96 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. But I think it was "Multi 21" rather than "Mutli Map 21"?[2][3] And is the text clear enough that it was Vettel who disobeyed teams orders (i.e. and not Webber)? And the whole issue needs references. Mark83 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Mark83: Clarified and the message given to Vettel which was made public after the race was "Multi Map 21" MWright96 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Continuing review. Since you have identified that this might be an FAC one day, I am going to give a more thorough, tougher review. Although lots of these corrections are not necessary for GA, it will become necessary for FAC so I would rather identify those issues now.

Sports car racing and International Formula 3000 (1998–2001)

• Webber rejected an offer from Mercedes-Benz motorsports boss Norbert Haug to drive a CLK GTR car at the FIA GT Nürburgring 4 Hours in place of Alexander Wurz after testing at the A1 Ring but did agree to race for the AMG Mercedes team in the 1998 FIA GT Championship." -> After testing at the A1 Ring, Webber rejected an offer from Mercedes-Benz motorsports boss Norbert Haug to drive a CLK GTR car at the FIA GT Nürburgring 4 Hours. However, he did agree to race for the AMG Mercedes team in the 1998 FIA GT Championship." This splits up a run-on sentence and makes this flow better. I am not sure why it is important to name-drop Wurz, but I'm not bothered if he remains in the article.
• "Haug selected Webber after AMG Mercedes' Gerhard Ungar liked Webber's tenacity trying to achieve his goals and paired Webber with touring car driver Bernd Schneider, who mentored him driving-wise and in vehicle mechanics, in order to combine youth and experience." Another run-on sentence. It might be a good idea to read through the whole article and see if there's other instances of this. I suggest: "Haug selected Webber after AMG Mercedes' Gerhard Ungar liked Webber's tenacity. He paired Webber with touring car driver Bernd Schneider, who mentored him driving-wise and in vehicle mechanics." The things I cut I feel are unnecessary. Considering the length of the article and this section, I think cutting out extra words would be beneficial.
• "she suggested to Webber he enter the" -> she suggested that Webber enter the
• "Webber only entered the" delete only
• "to go airborne in both qualifying between Mulsanne Corner" Is there supposed to be a word after qualifying, like "both qualifying races"?
  • There are no qualifying races for the 24 Hours of Le Mans MWright96 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Webber relationship with Mercedes-Benz" -> Webber's relationship
• "Webber relationship with Mercedes-Benz cooled following Le Mans since he felt it was unworried about him and he rejected Haug's offer to compete in American open-wheel racing." -> "Webber relationship with Mercedes-Benz cooled following Le Mans because he felt they were unworried about him. He rejected Haug's offer to compete in American open-wheel racing."
• "Airline magnate Paul Stoddart through talks with Jordan Grand Prix team owner Eddie Jordan offered to underwrite $1.1 million" Commas after Stoddart and Jordan
• "For 2001, he moved to the Benetton Formula-affiliated, reigning teams' champions Super Nova Racing, replacing Nicolas Minassian after impressing team owner David Sears." I don't think "after impressing team owner David Sears" is necessary: the reader already knows that the team liked Webber (or they wouldn't have hired him) and Sears is not mentioned again in the article.
• "Four consecutive retirements in the final four rounds prevented him from winning a championship he desired to win since it was his last opportunity to do so in the lower categories.[40] He scored 39 points, finishing runner-up to Justin Wilson." -> "Four consecutive retirements in the final four rounds prevented him from winning a championship and he scored 39 points, finishing runner-up to Justin Wilson." I don't think it's necessary to say that he wanted to win, as this is assumed for most competators. The article will also tell the reader in the next section that he moves up to a higher league, so that's not necessary either.

Testing (1999–2001)

• "He joined Briatore's managerial stable in May 2001 on a ten-year contract after Neal suggested to Webber he join it so she could step back from driver management." -> "He joined Briatore's managerial stable in May 2001 on a ten-year contract when Neal stated that she wanted to step back from driver management." to shorten the sentence.

Minardi and Jaguar (2002–2004)

• "Webber began competing in F1 with Minardi after a three-race contract was finalised with Stoddart following discussions with the team and lobbying from Ron Walker and telecommunications company Telstra, replacing the outgoing Fernando Alonso." -> "Ron Walker and telecommunications company Telstra lobbied for Webber to replace Fernando Alonso on team Minardi. Webber signed a three-race contract to compete in F1 for the team." Or something similar.
  • Done a little differently MWright96 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Webber was the first Australian F1 driver since David Brabham in 1994,[49] and hoped to become experienced enough to make progress in F1." I'm not sure everything after ref 49 is necessary: I assume that a competitor's goal is to continue to progress. I recommend deleting everything after ref 49.
• "Webber and his funded teammate Alex Yoong" Delete funded
• "His best result for the rest of the season was eighth at the French Grand Prix and could remain in the mid-grid," What is the mid-grid? This will need to be explained and possibly wikilinked.
• "His management were concerned about Minardi's financial situation and so arranged with Jaguar team principal and three-time world champion Niki Lauda a test session in the more powerful Jaguar R3 car in Spain in mid-2002 for evaluation." -> "In 2002, Webber's management was concerned about Minardi's financial situation. They arranged for a test session and evaluation in a Jaguar R3 car in mid-2002."
• "Toyota and Jaguar were interested in Webber,[57]" I think this is too much detail, considering the length of this section, and it would be better to tell about Webber's signing with Jaguar quickly.
• "and Stoddart released Webber from Minardi.[58]" -> I think we can delete the release, as it is implied that he was able to join another team when he joined the team.
• "rapidly wearing rear tyres.[60][52]" In FACs, references must be in numerical order. Before nominating for FAC, ensure that all refs are numerically correct.
• "he qualified a season-high third but crashed after losing grip driving through water to cool his tyres late in the rain-affected race from which he emerged uninjured." I don't think it's necessary to note that he was uninjured; as a reader, I assume that he was uninjured unless an injury is noted and this sentence is already very long.
• "Webber signed a two-year extension to his Jaguar contract instead of five years originally offered to him until post-2005 after it was keen to retain him having been impressed by his early-season performances," -> Webber was offered a five-year extension to his contract but signed a two-year extension instead." It is assumed that Jaguar was impressed by Webber and wanted to retain him, as they offered him a contract extension, so this does not need to be explicitly stated.
• "and stopped enquiries from Ferrari and McLaren." I think it is common for competitors, no matter the sport, to have others want to sign them as part of their teams, so I do not think this is notable and can be deleted.
• "He was joined by the Red Bull-backed Christian Klien for the whole 2004 season." I'm not sure if this is necessary in this article, as this is a biography about Webber. Perhaps this can be deleted as too much detail.
• "He scored points four times with a season-high start of second at the Malaysian Grand Prix and a best finish of sixth at the European Grand Prix in the underperforming and unreliable R5 vehicle causing him to retire from 8 out of 18 races." Split this sentence into two. Perhaps, "He raced in the underperforming and unreliable R5 vehicle causing him to retire from 8 out of 18 races. However, he scored points four times with a season-high start of second at the Malaysian Grand Prix and a best finish of sixth at the European Grand Prix."

I'll pause there to let the nominator resolve the above. There are lots of sentences where two thoughts cause the sentence to become too long. I suggest that someone read through the whole article to ensure that these types of sentences are split up. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I note your comments about this being a potential FA and hence giving it a tougher GA review. I don't think that's fair or appropriate. At the very least you should identify what you feel is necessary to fix for GA and optional issues to fix for a future FAC. That will give the nominator the choice of what to fix. You've effectively unilaterally raised the bar to FA criteria here. Mark83 (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Have gone through to the end of 2004 and made various changes to the article based on the points raised above thus far MWright96 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Mark83: First of all, I want to assure editors that this article is in great shape: if I thought this article was not close to GA quality, I would have already said so. I think this article can become a GA very soon. I ask GA nominators if they are planning on bringing this article to FAC and if they want a more thorough review is because it is difficult for editors to get feedback on their article before an FAC; some articles sit in Template:FAC peer review sidebar for months waiting for someone to give comments. GA is often the first opportunity for editors to receive feedback on the articles and I want to take advantage of that. Furthermore, if I am reading the article anyways, I can give FA feedback as I read it. When I was trying to promote William Lyon Mackenzie to FA status, I appreciated that the GA reviewer gave harsher comments, and I wish they continued to give pre-FAC comments in the GAN. Editors should not use this review as a basis for evaluating a GAN, since I am being harsher.
• @MWright96: if you wish to go back to only evaluating for GAN, please let me know. Switching back won't affect my opinion of promoting to GA. If you want, we can also switch back to GA comments, and then open a WP:PR after this GAN is complete. Another option is that I separate the GA comments from the FA comments, so that you know which comments are necessary to resolve for GAN, and which ones you can work on later. Let me know which option you prefer. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Z1720: I'd like to continue with the review with GA comments separated from the FA comments MWright96 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I'll continue with separating the comments. Everything necessary for FA will be marked as (FA) before the comment.

Williams (2005–2006)

• "Webber activated an performance clause" -> activated a performance clause
• (FA)"He was in constant contact with the Williams team." This is not necessary as too much detail and can be deleted.
• (FA)"Webber activated an performance clause enabling his departure from Jaguar if an improved offer came along,[69] and Williams agreed to break Sauber driver Fisichella's contract clause dictating he join either their team, McLaren or Ferrari.[70] This allowed Webber to drive for Williams in 2005,[69] -> "Webber activated a performance clause enabling his departure from Jaguar if an improved offer came along. Williams released Fisichella from his contract with the team and Webber was hired as Fisichella's replacement in 2005." Makes the sentence a little tighter while conveying the same information.
• "having been selected for his approach to driving." Expand upon this a little bit. What was the approach to driving that Webber was selected for? What specific skills did he bring to his new team?
• "injury to Heidfeld;[74] the Williams FW27" Replace this semi-colon with a period to avoid a long, run-on sentence.
• (FA) "He competed on painkillers prescribed to him by FIA medical director Gary Hartstein for the first two races because of a broken left-hand side rib and damaged rib cartilage he picked up after not exercising correctly prior to driving in a pre-season test session under high G-forces in Spain in mid-February." -> I would flip this so that it is chronological: "In a pre-season test session in mid-February, he sustained a broken left-side rib and damaged rib cartilage when he did not exercise correctly prior to driving. In the first two races of the season he competed on painkillers prescribed to him by FIA medical director Gary Hartstein to manage the pain from these injuries."
• (FA) "and admitted a faltering reputation." -> and admitted to a faltering reputation. I think this is better grammatically.
• "He had become distant" -> "He became distant"
• "Webber's teammate that year was GP2 Series champion Nico Rosberg and his FW28 car ran Bridgestone tyres and a Cosworth V8 engine after BMW ended its partnership with Williams and purchased the Sauber team." Separate into two sentences because these are two different thoughts: "Webber's teammate that year was GP2 Series champion Nico Rosberg. His FW28 car ran Bridgestone tyres and a Cosworth V8 engine after BMW ended its partnership with Williams and purchased the Sauber team."

2007–2009 (Red Bull Racing section)

• "Webber's Williams contract ended in 2006 and the team did not re-sign him for two more years since it offered him less money." I think if the team offered him less money, then it was Webber's decision to not sign with the team. Perhaps rephrase to, "Webber's did not re-sign with the team after he was offered less money for a two-year contract."
• "Webber had become disillusioned with F1 with press relations and people not being allowed to speak their minds." with F1 with is awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "Webber became disillusioned with F1 because their press relations would not let competitors speak freely." Also, who were they not allowed to speak freely to? The press, other teams, the F1 organisation?
• (FA)"Briatore directed Webber to the Red Bull Racing team and became interested since it had purchased Jaguar in late 2004 and signed world championship winning technical director Adrian Newey to design the RB3-Renault car." I'm confused by this sentence: were Webber and Briatore interested in the Red Bull Racing Team because of the technical director? Perhaps, "Briatore directed Webber to the Red Bull Racing team; they became interested in the team after they purchased Jaguar in late 2004 and signed world championship-winning technical director Adrian Newey to design the RB3-Renault car."
• (FA) "Webber scored only once more that year" Delete only
• (FA) "into the rear of his car behind the safety car and eliminating both drivers from the race." -> "into the rear of his car behind the safety car, eliminating both drivers from the race."
• (FA) "Because of Red Bull's performance, Webber signed a one-year contract extension to 2009's conclusion after negotiations." -> "Because of Red Bull's performance, Webber signed a one-year contract extension at the 2009 season's conclusion." I'm not thrilled with my proposed wording, but I don't think "to 2009's conclusion" is the correct preposition. Also, readers assume that there were negociations before a contract was signed so "after negociations" isn't necessary.
• (FA) "Webber was unable to partake in a three-day pre-season test session held at the Jerez circuit in Spain because of his sustaining multiple injuries in a head-on collision with a Nissan four-wheel drive car heading towards him at a charity endurance cycling event in Port Arthur, Tasmania in November 2008.[j][93][94] Although doctors assessed Webber's fractured right leg to be a six-month injury, he was able to regain enough fitness to be back driving an F1 car at the 2009 pre-season test sessions at Jerez and Barcelona,[95] due to the late launch of the RB5 car." I think it would be better if this was placed in chronological order. I also think there's too much detail in this sentence, as the make of the car is not necessary if the injury was at a cycling event. Perhaps, "Webber sustained multiple injuries in a head-on collision with a car at a charity endurance cycling event in Port Arthur, Tasmania in November 2008, including a fractured right leg. He skipped a three-day pre-season test session held at the Jerez circuit in Spain, but was able to drive in an F1 car at the 2009 pre-season test sessions at Jerez and Barcelona,[95] due to the late launch of the RB5 car."
• (FA) "Webber was not entirely physically fit for the season's start and underwent surgery between events to avoid contracting infections." If he is undergoing surgery, the reader can assume that he was not physically fit. Perhaps, "Webber underwent surgery between events to avoid contracting infections."
• (FA) "Webber was informed that he and Vettel could race each other "for the foreseeable future" even when trying to reduce Button's points lead." I'm not sure this sentence is needed. If it is kept, who is informing Webber of this information?

I'll pause there. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Have reached the end of the most recent set of comments and have made several edits with a few changes to some proposed changes MWright96 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Next set:

2010–2013 (Red Bull section)

• (FA)"Webber believed 2010 would be about tyres since everyone now had to begin races with a full fuel tank with additional car weight affecting tyre reliability." I think this is included because of the text that focuses on tyres later. However, I don't think it's necessary and too much about speculation.
• "After the season, Webber was angry not with Vettel but with Red Bull's management," Delete 'not with Vettel"
• "That season, Webber vied for the title with Vettel, McLaren's Lewis Hamilton and Button and Alonso." I think this is too much detail: focus on Webber coming in second behind Alonso.

• (FA) The second paragraph can be trimmed a lot, and combined with the first paragraph in my opinion. This is because this section is long and there's a lot of WP:TOOMUCHDETAIL; the more information there is in an article, the less likely someone will read it. Perhaps the paragraph can be combined like so:

• Webber and Red Bull negotiated a contract extension to the 2010 championship.[103][104][105] His RB6 car was designed to channel engine exhaust gases through a bodywork slot to the diffuser's central area for more downforce and cornering speed.[106] A knee training injury forced a delay to his preparation when a surgeon conducted a full knee incision.[106] Inactivity after surgery increased Webber's weight to 80 kg (180 lb); a strict diet kept his weight at 75 kg (165 lb).[107] Upon his return to racing, Webber led the Drivers' Championship at various points during the season, achieving four Grand Prix victories and three pole positions.[m] An accident with Rosberg at the Korean Grand Prix and a second-place finish at the following Brazilian Grand Prix put Webber eight points behind Alonso before the season-ending Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.[105] Webber placed eighth in the race and Alonso came seventh for third overall with 242 points.[110] After the season, Webber was angry with Red Bull's management, thinking they devalued his achievements that year.[111] He had collided with Vettel while battling for the lead at the Turkish Grand Prix, which cooled his relationship with Marko who blamed Webber for the accident and favoured Vettel. The relationship further deteriorated when Vettel received a new front wing intended for Webber following practice for the British Grand Prix.

• "Alonso came seventh for third overall with 242 points." Who received 242 points?
• "he considered switching teams or retiring if Red Bull did not renew his contract." I don't think there are other options? If a team doesn't sign you, then you either go to a new team or retire I think? This can be deleted.
• "Webber made fewer pit stops by being on the same strategy as other drivers after previously having to stop more often from racing competitively." This needs a little expansion; what was this strategy that other drivers were using?
• "Vettel beat him all-year but Webber got closer by the season's conclusion." -> I don't think it's necessary to note that Webber was closer by the end of the year, just that Vettel defeated Webber.
• "Webber remained at Red Bull for the 2012 season,[125] having signed a contract extension on the day of the Hungarian Grand Prix and after reviewing offers from other teams before making his decision after talks with Matsechitz and Horner." Delete everything after 2012, it's not needed and is too much detail/assumed that Webber would negociate with other teams.
• "He entered the season in a good mood following fitness training in Australia,[129] and was confident of "a very, very strong season",[130] hoping to achieve a good start as in 2010." This is not needed and can be deleted. Instead of speaking about speculation, the article should state what happened. This also allows this paragraph to be combined with the subsequent paragraph.
• "He had become frustrated with F1" -> He became frustrated
• "He had become frustrated with F1 racing after a poor performance at the Spanish Grand Prix and noted racing in that era would see a driver starting outside the top ten delayed by slower cars and degrading their Pirelli tyres enough to force them to slow." Delete everything after Spanish Grand Prix: This information is Webber's speculation about what will happen in races and is not necessary. If this is to signal a change of Webber's strategy in racing, then this should be explicitly stated.
• "Webber remained at Red Bull for the 2013 championship, partly to honour an earlier promise he had made to Horner and Mateschitz to stay at the team until his F1 career was over and also due to him being in championship contention early in 2012,[133] rejecting an offer from Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali to partner Alonso and replace Felipe Massa for a year with a second optional, feeling switching teams would be wrong." Run-on sentence. Perhaps, "Webber remained at Red Bull for the 2013 championship: he wanted to honour an earlier promise he had made to Horner and Mateschitz to stay at the team until his F1 career was over.[133] He rejected an offer from Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali to partner Alonso and replace Felipe Massa for a year with a second optional, feeling switching teams would be wrong."
• "feeling switching teams would be wrong." -> "feeling switching teams would be inappropriate."
• (FA)"Webber was assigned Simon Rennie as his race engineer after his five-year working relationship with Ciaron Pilbeam ended when Pilbeam became the Lotus team's chief race engineer." -> "Webber was assigned Simon Rennie as his race engineer when his previous engineer, Ciaron Pilbeam, left to join the Lotus team's chief race engineer."

More comments later. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Have addressed the latest set of queries MWright96 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MWright96 Sorry for this delay: real life got really busy for me unexpectedly. Here's another set of comments:

World Endurance Championship stint with Porsche (2014–2016)

• "Webber learnt that Porsche would return to motor racing from board member Wolfgang Hatz at the re-opening of the renamed Red Bull Ring in mid-2011,[136] and he officially joined the manufacturer in mid-2013." I don't think it's important to know where Webber learned about Porsche's return to racing, I recommend "Webber joined Porsche's team upon the company's return to motor racing in 2013" or something similar.
• "He was less physically challenged than in F1 and knew he needed consistently high concentration levels..." -> "Although sports car racing was less physically demanding for Webber, he needed consistently high concentration"
• (FAC)"and retired with a broken anti-roll bar 22 hours in.[141][137]" make sure references are in numerical order.
• "punctures and a front axle gearbox problem, left him 27th overall." Remove this comma

Four-year retirement and Superstar Racing Experience (2017–present)

• "He committed to his thoughts of retiring and informed Porsche of his decision." This sentence is redundant and can be deleted.
• "travel restrictions meant Webber was ultimately unable to." What travel restrictions? Was this related to COVID? This should be expanded upon.
• (FAC)In general, this section is very small. What did he do after he retired? Did he do any work? Consulting? Try to find additional information for this section.
  • Further information is found later in the article MWright96 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Driving style

• "Journalist Mark Hughes described Webber's core driving style as "the thing he does arguably better than anyone else, is extract every ounce of potential from the car through fast, aerodynamically-loaded corners" since extra lap time could be located in slower turns because the car remains in them for longer." This is a run-on sentence and is gramatically suspect. Maybe, "In describing Webber's driving style, journalist Mark Hughes stated: "[T]he thing he does arguably better than anyone else, is extract every ounce of potential from the car through fast, aerodynamically-loaded corners" which allowed Webber to decrease his lap times.
• (FAC) " His driving style, which was refined in downforce-heavy sports cars in the late 1990s, was not suited to a more gentle approach required for driving V8 F1 Pirelli-shod cars." Why not? This should be explained in the article.
• (FAC) I would like to see this section expanded upon. One thing that might be missing is an analysis of how his driving style changed as his career progressed.
  • Was unable to find much information on this subject MWright96 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

More comments later. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Have made further changes to the article except for where I have replied MWright96 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements and philanthropy

• "From 2009 to 2013, Webber and Horner co-owned the MW Arden junior team that ran in the European-based GP3 Series." This isn't an endorsement for Webber or philanthropy, so should be moved to 2017-present.
• "In 2003, Webber began the ten-day 1,000 km (620 mi) adventure challenge trek Mark Webber Challenge featuring cross-country running, cycling and kayaking in Tasmania to raise money for children's cancer charities,[169][170] inspired by "the desire to give something back"[169] and organised it following his grandfather's death from cancer as well as his experiences of friends whose children had cancer.[171]" Run on-sentence, maybe, "In 2003, Webber began the ten-day 1,000 km (620 mi) adventure challenge trek Mark Webber Challenge featuring cross-country running, cycling and kayaking in Tasmania to raise money for children's cancer charities.[169][170] He organised it following his grandfather's death from cancer as well as his experiences of friends whose children had cancer.[171]" This also removes the quote, as it is very general and the inspiration of his grandfather is more specific.
• "Webber has written columns for Autosport," This whole paragraph should be moved to 2017-present, as this discusses his career, instead of endorsements and philanthropy.

Assessment and honours

• (FAC) "He is nicknamed "Aussie Grit"" Webber's name should be restated at the beginning of every section, and usually at the beginning of every paragraph.
• (FAC) This section uses a lot of quotes about the awards he has received. I suggest paraphrasing some of these or removing the explanation.

Further reading

• (FAC) You may be asked at FAC why things listed in Further reading are not used as sources. If you can incorporate them into the article, do so. If they are not high-quality sources, consider removing them.

References

• Per MOS:LAYOUT, "Bibliography" and "Further reading" goes after Notes and references.

Source check

• Using this version, I checked the following sources for verification: 6, 81, 100, 154, 158, 176, 191, 192, 199
• (FAC) Ref 81: The archived link did not work for me. Since it has a permalink, I'm not sure that it needs to be archived. Also, the word "there" should also be in quotes ("there was something left")
• (FAC) Ref: 191 archive link did not work for me.
• No concerns about copyright after an earwig check

Images

• No copyright concerns.
• (FAC) There are too many images in the "Red Bull Racing (2007–2013)" section, causing MOS:SANDWICH. These images are also very similar to each other, so some of these should be removed.

Those are my comments! Let me know when these are complete or if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Further changes have been made. Let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing MWright96 (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @MWright96: I think this article passes the GA criteria! Congratulations, and thank you for indulging in pre-FA critiques. I think this article is close to being ready for a FA nom, but it will require some more fine-tuning. I suggest submitting the article for a copyedit at WP:GOCER: those editors are much better than me for grammar and punctuation. If you want to open up a PR, I suggest adding it to Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and perhaps reviewing some articles listed there. Please ping if you want me to do another look and check for other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)