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.
Just a reminder that this article is listed at
WP:ITN/R. However, it won't get posted whilst there is a maintenance tag on it. The referencing issues need addressing before it is removed.
Mjroots (
talk)
17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)reply
According to the FIA, drivers who fail to finish a race but complete at least 90% of race distance are classified. However, they are still considered DNFs. See the official classification for Austria 2016 as an example.
They are already distinctly marked, it's what the cross is for. Since cars that are classified but fail to finish are treated the same as every other classified finisher (i.e, can score points and podiums), using the same colours as a retirement will be extremely confusing, particularly in situations where they have scored points.
QueenCake (
talk)
17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Before we go any further, I think we should move this discussion to
WT:F1 (or possibly even
WT:MOTOR). This issue affects hundreds of articles and the discussion should not be held on the talk page of just one of them.
Tvx1
20:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Why is it confusing? The cars in question actually were retirements. For example Perez crashed out in Austria. The colour key says blue is for non-points finish or not-classified finish. Purple is for DNF / retirements. According to the FIA, 17th-20th places in Austria were DNFs. Therefore the blue background is incorrect.
Monaco 1996 - 5th and 6th place were classified but didn't finish. If green is for points finish, then they've been coloured incorrectly. They are non-finishers and should be purple with a symbol and footnote. This accurately reflects their race result - DNFs.
DrX au (
talk)
23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The colours as used are fine as they are. Purple is used for retirements but that is overridden when a driver is classified, so he gets the blue background. It's most definitely overridden when they score points, and they get a green background. It's really pretty clear. That's how it was designed. If there's any confusion for some people, they key can be reworded rather than trawling through thousands of articles dicking around with colours.
Bretonbanquet (
talk)
23:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The colouring of the table is determined by
template:F1 driver results legend 2, according to WP:F1 convention. There is no text list or table of finishing types with their corresponding colours. According to the original template, purple is for DNFs (classified or not), and blue is for non-points finishers (classified or not). The argument is about whether a driver who was classified can be considered to have finished the race or not. The FIA says that he didn't finish. Who are WP editors to override that?
Why is this even a point of contention? Purple means "Did not finish". The FIA official classification say that places 17-20 in Austria 2016 were DNFs. They did not finish, therefore they should be purple. Their classification is secondary to that, hence the footnote.
A classified non-finisher is not the same as a non-classified finisher, in fact it's the opposite. So why should it be the same colour?
If WP editors have a problem because articles contain errors that they missed, or the original conventions have not been correctly applied, then that's too bad. Errors should be corrected, instead of rewording the conventions to be consistent with the erroneous entries. You have to start somewhere.
DrX au (
talk)
23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on
2016 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
Nico Rosberg (left) won his first World Drivers' Championship, shortly before announcing his retirement from the sport, beating the defending World Champion, Lewis Hamilton (right).
Might the Rosberg and Hamilton images work better side-by-side, like so:
I know you motorsports types love them, but the MOS does ask us not to use flags without accompanying them with the country name in
MOS:FLAG.
It's a guideline, not a policy. This has come before in GAN's and
FAC's This was discussed at the WikiProject
here. The broad consensus was that the addition of the country names would create undue emphasis on that aspect for the gain of little quality. Note that those discussions are pretty old and that technology has massively developed since. Flag icons are not simple images, but are actually generated though templates. Templates which proved links to the country, which make the name of the country appear if you put your mouse on the flag (or put your finger on it) and which even ensure that the country names are read aloud to people without fully-abled vision or without any vision at all who use assistive technology to read these articles. Therefore I think the contested wording of the MOS has become obsolete. In total we have 16 FA's and 77 GA's which achieved that status despite using the exact same system in use in this article. So I think this should not prevent this one from attaining GA status as well.
Tvx1
20:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
No problem; I always bring it up, but I would never block a GA or FA because of this. You make well reasoned points that might be best directed at an RfC to update the MOS though.
Harriastalk09:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The whole second half of the first paragraph is unreferenced.
I've just browsed down the rest of this section, and there is a lot of unreferenced content. I'm going to pause reviewing this for the moment and put the review on hold to give you some time to address the referencing issues. Rule of thumb: anything that is less obvious than "the sky is blue" needs a reference.
Harriastalk12:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I've added a considerable number of sources to the season report. Feel free to point out if there's still insufficient refs somewhere.
Tvx1
16:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I have had a glance, but unfortunately, I have issues at home at the moment that mean I am unable to give this my time right now. You can either wait a few weeks, when I expect to be able to complete it, or request another reviewer.
Harriastalk20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"the sport's Strategy Working Group and over-ruled the teams" – No need for the "and", unless it changes to "the sport's Strategy Working Group met and over-ruled the teams".
"The race finished with no retirements, a feat that has only been achieved six times." This might be better phrased as "The race finished with no retirements, only the sixth time the feat had been achieved." (Or similar.) This would avoid having to update it if it happens again, rare though it is.
"with Vettel and Kvyat getting involved again as in China, but this time Kvyat hit Vettel two times forcing Vettel to retire." The China incident wasn't actually mentioned in this section, so it reads a bit oddly here.
"The Grand Prix was marked by controversy: Rosberg secured pole position on a drying circuit in qualifying after McLaren's Fernando Alonso spun in front of him necessitating a double waved yellow flag. Although race stewards confirmed that Rosberg had slowed, he nevertheless secured pole with his lap time." – I don't know whether more explanation is needed here for a layperson; maybe spell out what the double yellow requires of the driver?
While I grant that it was an interesting race, Singapore seems to have a lot more written about it than a lot of the earlier races, is it really all necessary in a season summary?
The use of bold and italic in the World Drivers' Championship standings and World Constructors' Championship standings tables contravenes
MOS:ACCESS, though again this is a wider issue than should really be settled in a GAN.
That's the prose review completed. I still need to check on the references and images, and will hopefully get those finished soon.
Harriastalk11:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Images all fine.
Ref #1 uses "Formula1.com", ref #3 uses "formula1.com" and ref #4 uses "Formula 1.com". Pick one format and use it throughout. Similar issues with whether the article uses "Haas F1 Team" (for example) or "mclaren.com" / "fia.com" or "FIA.com". Quite a few instances of these variations, please take a look through and make them more consistent.
In progress.... It appears the refs are in worse shape than I thought. This will take some time to rectify.
Tvx1
15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Harrias,
Tvx1, where does this stand? The review has been open for over three months now, and Tvx1 hasn't made any edits to the article in over a month. Any chance of wrapping this up in the near future?
BlueMoonset (
talk)
17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oops, this slipped from my mind. I think I actually dressed all the major content problems. The referencing still needs some further uniformizing. I have some time the next days, so I'll get this going again.
Tvx1
23:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Tvx1, have you finished with the referencing? I see that you made a bunch of edits shortly after the above. This nomination will be a year old tomorrow, so it would be nice to get it moving again. Unfortunately,
Harrias hasn't been editing much over the past couple of months; if you'd like, I can see whether I can find someone else to finish this off. Thanks.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
14:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'll take this on. It looks like there was a fairly thorough review above, which seems to be all dealt with, so rather than go through the old review line by line I'll just read through again as if this were a brand-new review. I'll work on it this evening but it might not be done till tomorrow.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.
underwent changes regarding their power unit supply: a little stilted. How about "made changes to their power units", or "changed their power unit supplier"?
I understand your concern, but I don't think either of your proposals work. The first one actually reads af it they made physical changes to the power units, whereas the second one is wrong as Red Bull Racing did not change their supplier but merely had the name of their power units changed.
Tvx1
23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
He joined the newly formed Haas F1 Team for 2016, where he was joined by: two consecutive "joined"s. Could the first be changed to "signed with"?
The race was originally scheduled to début in 2013, but has been delayed for four consecutive years: no longer the right tense, since it's not 2016 anymore. If it eventually happened, make it "was delayed until 201x"; if not, "but has been delayed and as of 2018 has still not been held" or something like that.
This format was heavily criticized by teams, drivers, fans and the press, to which the decision was taken to review the format before the next race: "to which" is not right, but I'm not sure of the intended meaning so I can't fix it myself. Was the decision taken to review the format because of the criticism? If so, I'd make it "... and the press, which led to a decision to review the format...". And do we know if the format actually was reviewed before the next race? Or do we only know they decided to do so, but we don't know if they did? If the review happened, there's no need to talk about the decision, so "...and the press, which led to a review of the format...".
Tweaked It was indeed reviewed before the next race and kept before being dropped altogether following the race.
Tvx1
23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Can we briefly say why the teams didn't like the qualifying format?
I'm not sure this is warranted in a season article. This was also very subjective between the different the teams and drivers. Though in general the main criticism was that there was not enough on track action with the pole time (and last time laps) being set well before the end of the session in both cases.
Tvx1
23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
In light of the controversy surrounding pit-to-car communications: there's been no mention of controversy; can we summarize whatever it was?
Verstappen was subject to increasing criticism over his driving standards: what are "driving standards"? Driving ability?
Tweaked, it was his overly-agressive tactics (which he keeps using even in today's race) during overtakes (both while passing and when others attempt to pass him) rather than his general ability.
Tvx1
23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I happened to notice that the Bahrain race was on after I finished this review, and I watched the second half; first F1 race I've watched in decades. A good one to pick, it looks like!
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
using strategy to get ahead of the Ferraris of Vettel and Räikkönen: "using strategy" is too vague.
Red Bull Racing decided to pit Daniel Ricciardo from second to prevent coming under threat from Hamilton: I don't follow this; Ricciardo was ahead of Hamilton; wouldn't pitting enable Hamilton to pass or get closer, and threaten his position?
It would indeed bring Hamilton closer. However as long as Ricciardo did not pit, Hamilton was closing in because he had fresher tyres and might have gotten ahead of Ricciardo if he waited too long to make a pitstop. When Ricciardo made his pit-stop, now on tyres of the same age Hamilton was not much a threat anymore and Ricciardo could actually attack Rosberg who opted to nurse his tyres to the finish instead of making another pit-stop. I will note that in Formula One they have to make a least one tyre change per race according to the rules.
Tvx1
23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not sure every reader will understand that a pit stop is almost invariably a tyre change, with an implied speed change, but there's a related explanation in the next sentence, so I think this is OK.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Did Hamilton's engine really "explode" in the Malaysian Grand Prix?
using pit strategy to reclaim third place: I imagine this is clear to aficionados, but I've no idea what it means; is there a link, or could we get some kind of explanation?
I simply can't find a way to clarify this in manner which is concise enough for a season article. He basically overtook a couple of cars on track and passed another couple each with each of his pit-stops when his team's tyre choices ended up working better than the other teams' choices.
Tvx1
23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Not an issue for GA, but
[1] is a dead link; you may want to fix it. I didn't check all the archive links, but I noticed
this one failed to correctly archive; again, not needed for GA. FYI,
this discussion was interesting -- not everyone likes to see large-scale archiving of working links, apparently.
Fixed. The first source you mentioned simply had an incorrect url. I was able to retrieve the correct one. The second one you mention actually works fine for me. What issue do you experience? As for the ANI discussion. I don't think this is much of an issue here. This subject is not as large and evolving as Donald Trump and this article is well within size limits.
Tvx1
23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The first link is fixed; the second is telling me I've run out of free articles on autosport and have to subscribe, even though this is an archive.org link. I've struck the point since none of this is required for GA. Re the AN discussion, yes, I agree, I just thought it was interesting and I have to say personally I agree with the point that archiving can be overused, but I was just mentioning it as an FYI. This article is fine.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It's not you who has run out of free articles, archive.org has run out. They too have to subscribe if they want full access. An archived link cannot circumvent a paywall. Anyway, it's just a temporary thing since the site in question has a monthly quotum of free articles. Each month the used counter is reset to zero.
Tvx1
21:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
What makes these sites reliable?
jamesallenonf1.com a reliable source? It looks like he's an experienced journalist, but there's no editorial oversight.
racefans.net/f1fanatic.co.uk; the current version has a page showing that Collantine edits another author's work, but I don't see anything similar for the 2015 archived version, and I'm not sure that's enough in any case.
Agreed, the 2014 onwards table loses the visual pattern of the points allocation, the current two rows may as well be replaced with a single number for WCC points scored per round rather than a row for "the second placed car for that team" who unless you refer to the Driver's table you can't work out. Prior to 2014 the table was instantly more informative as you could see which car was, say, suffering more retirements within the same team.
Ei2g (
talk)
14:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)reply