McLaren MCL38 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 24, 2025 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 9, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the McLaren MCL38 Formula One car (example pictured) won McLaren their first World Constructors' Championship since 1998?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Formula One High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

@5225C: The McLaren MCL38 article lacks inline citations in several cases (I marked them with "citation needed" tags). The lack of citation will most likely auto-fail your nomination. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say a few unsourced sentences of uncontested claims would constitute an auto-fail under criteria (1) or (3), and it hasn't been a problem in the three previous GA reviews in this sequence. Regardless, I will have this fixed ASAP (over the weekend ideally) and absolutely appreciate your feedback. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @LastJabberwocky: I have added citations in place of all tags, albeit a bit later than I expected. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Thank you again. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:McLaren MCL38/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 5225C (talk · contribs) 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 11:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Copyedit completed. Well written and understandable for a non-technical audience.
	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, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I believe there's overuse of inline citations here. Please review WP:CITEDENSE and WP:CITEKILL for info, and H:CITEMERGE and WP:CITETRIM for help in merging and bundling citations. Done
	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).	Citation bot completed. Multiple sources spot-checked.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	5.7% on copyvio detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Great neutrality when discussing Norris and Piastri considering the real-world controversy and divisiveness.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	All images suitably tagged and no issues. Two of the images of Norris in his car do have a personality rights warning template on them, though there aren't really any images that carry the same weight and it's unlikely this will cause any issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Ample images depicting subject with good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Claiming for review. SnowyRiver (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looking forward to working with you on it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: Well done, this is a great article! Well-written and in-depth. See my notes above regarding the inline citation usage and let me know if you have any questions. I'll put this on hold for 7 days so you can get it fixed up, let me know if you need more time! SnowyRiver (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C any update on this? It's been seven days since the review was completed, happy to extend if you need more time :) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will need an extension of a few days sorry... have ended up inter-state. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good! Would another 5 days be ok? If you're needing significantly more time it might be better to fail the article for now and re-submit once it's fixed up. I'd be happy to re-review it quickly to save you waiting months and months again, especially since it's mostly ready to go and I've already done a thorough review. Let me know which way you'd like to go! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Five days should be heaps, thanks for understanding. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had a pass today, focused on removing repeats of citations in successive sentences, citations redundant to others (mainly in the background), and merging the big blocks in the assessment section. Let me know if that addresses your concerns or I can go for a more aggressive pass. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm happy with those improvements, and considerng that WP:CITEKILL isn't an explicit requirements for good articles anyway I think we're good to go.

Thanks for your work on a great article! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 16:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MCL38 driven by Lando Norris at the 2025 Dutch Grand Prix

• ... that the McLaren MCL38 Formula One car (pictured) won the marque's first World Constructors' Championship since 1998? Source: Coch, Mat (9 December 2024). "Magnificent McLaren ends 26-year drought". Speedcafe. Archived from the original on 11 December 2024. Retrieved 24 September 2025.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Săpânța-Peri Monastery

Improved to Good Article status by 5225C (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Date, size, QPQ, spotchecks, all GTG. Hook seems midly interesting, although it seems our criteria for what is interesting are becoming rather high. For me, it's good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Happy to think of some different hooks if this one's a bit bland. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note as I prep for promotion: the provided source didn't back up the hook claim about 1998, but another source (NBC News) did. It's been updated in the article and including it here for queuer's reference. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of this quote is unclear to the general readership - is "B" good, bad, what does it mean? Is "B" the abbreviation of something?   (This is not a question, this is a suggestion to improve the article.) ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I can see how that might be an ambiguous term. There wasn't anywhere useful to link to so I have added it to Glossary of motorsport terms#B. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about Red Bull winning using Renault engines in 2010? 1202Alarm (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Bull became Renault's factory team in 2011. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @5225C doesn't that mean in 2010 they won the championship using customer engines? Which makes the statement about the McLaren being the first since Brawn incorrect. 1202Alarm (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I left out half the statement. Red Bull became Renault's "primary team" in 2010 after they sold their works team at the end of the 2009, so they were not true customers. Red Bull became Renault's factory team in 2011. This position is made clear in the sources cited in the article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @5225C ok makes sense, thanks 1202Alarm (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]