Talk:1980 British Grand Prix

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the lead section contain information about the race winner?

I see no real reason why it should, TBH.

While the lead section should of course be written in such a way that it will encourage the reader to continue reading about the race, it shouldn't "give the game away". Therefore, I really don't see anything wrong with it simply saying where and when the race was held, what number race it was of the F1 season in question, and any small bits of additional info like the race's formal name.

And anyway, the infobox already contains information about the winner and the other two drivers who finished on the podium. Yes, many people might not look at the infobox, but even so... Bluebird207 (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

The 1980 British Grand Prix is a sporting event. You could not possibly argue that you can describe the article lead without mentioning its winner. Indeed according to Wikipedia:Spoiler It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. To argue that While the lead section should of course be written in such a way that it will encourage the reader to continue reading about the race, it shouldn't "give the game away". is fundamentally against Wikipedia's purpose. --Falcadore (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well...

The race was won by Australian driver, Alan Jones driving a Williams FW07B. The win was Jones' eighth Formula One Grand Prix victory and his fourth of the year. Including the non-championship Spanish Grand Prix it was Jones' third victory in a row as he built his charge towards becoming the 1980 World Drivers' Champion. Jones won by eleven seconds over the man becoming his arch-rival, Brazilian driver Nelson Piquet driving a Brabham BT49. Third, and the only other car to finish on the lead lap, was Jones' Williams Grand Prix Engineering team mate, Argentinian driver Carlos Reutemann.

I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but I still think that's just a bit too much information for the lead section.

I will compromise, though, and give in about not mentioning the race winner.

But is that not enough? Is it not fine for the lead section to simply say, "It was won by Australian driver Alan Jones driving a Williams-Ford" or something like that?

Again without meaning to be disrespectful, things like "including the non-championship Spanish Grand Prix it was Jones' third victory in a row as he built his charge towards becoming the 1980 World Drivers' Champion" and "Jones won by eleven seconds over the man becoming his arch-rival, Brazilian driver Nelson Piquet driving a Brabham BT49" are, IMHO, more appropriate for the race report than for the lead section. Bluebird207 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been very gradually working through some of the years where reports are very thin and following a formula for a bare bones piece of text to flash out the table only reports.

I picked first, second and third because at the end of each and every race the top three finishers are celebrated at the podium ceremony. It seems to me that if the those running Formula One recognise 1-2-3 as a formal highlight of proceedings in that manner that it is an easy method to copy for article leads. --Falcadore (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But that still doesn't mean that the lead section *has* to contain information about the second- and third-place finishers, does it? As I said, the infobox already provides that information besides (for the races that have one) the Report section.

One does have to be fair, though - not everyone can or ever will entirely agree on what should go in the lead section of an article about a motor race, and what shouldn't. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the current lead for this article is about right. As Falcadore has identified, finishing in the top three is a recognised achievement in Formula One and explicitly identifying the top three in the lead provides a convenient mechanism to introduce points of interest about the race which can help the reader to decide whether or not they want to read the full article, e.g. it was driver X's third win in a row, or the two Y cars lapped the field, or by finishing third, driver Z clinched the championship, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)