Talk:2015 Monaco Grand Prix

Hamilton

Some IPs are adding content on Mercedes' decision to pit Hamilton, with that action directly costing him the victory.

THIS CAN NOT BE ADDED!

The simple truth is that, while he had a ~20 second advantage, it is not on us, editors of an encyclopedia, to declare that he would have won. Any source used to support his potential victory is speculative — it cannot be proven that he would have held his lead. Whether a crash, a breakdown, or a lead change after the safety car period had Hamilton not pitted... all of it is speculative.

DO NOT ADD THAT HAMILTON WOULD HAVE WON THE RACE! Twirlypen (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I do believe we can add information to this sense as long as we note its speculative nature. Such as quoting a source saying "a race he was likely have won". Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

well, apart from the crash it's about the only notabele thing that happened in this race. You can count on it that EVERY future reference to this race will focus on it. So IMO the current version of the article definitely understates this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.138.126 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia. We do not report on speculation. We do not write about what would have happened if Mitt Romney won the 2012 US Presidential Election. We do not write about how many more people may have died in 9/11 had it happened an hour or two later. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to detail what happened, not what would have or might have happened. Hamilton's victory, however likely, cannot be reliably proven. Twirlypen (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may have my say, what next? Why don't we claim that Ayrton Senna would have beaten every record in the book and won 8 World Championships. Leave it factual and concise on occurred events and circumstances only.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please check if you are satisfied with how I phrased it in the post-race section. I made it quite clear that it is a third-party opinion. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I like it. It accurately states that the decision to pit cost Hamilton the lead, without definitively stating that he was certain to win. There are a handful of other "what-ifs" that could have happened between the restart and the end of the race that potentially would cost a victory regardless of the decision to pit - a collision, puncture, getting passed, breakdown, tyre trouble (as Hamilton eluded to in his radio communication), just to name a few scenarios.

Basically, saying the decision to pit cost Hamilton the victory would be inaccurate in itself, because ultimately it was Verstappen misjudging his braking point and crashing that brought out the safety car which then led to the decision to pit. Twirlypen (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, aren't we supposed to report what reliable sources report? Our sources are telling us that "the decision to pit cost Hamilton the victory". For example, Andrew Benson, Chief F1 writer in Monaco for BBC.com, wrote "Mercedes apologised to Lewis Hamilton for what they admitted was the strategic error that cost him victory in the Monaco Grand Prix." If the decision to pit didn't cost Hamilton the victory, then why did Toto Wolff and Niki Lauda bother apologising to him, in public even? I think we do indeed report on speculation, when in a case like this, the speculation is expert speculation and unanimous. You seem to be overlooking the fact that Monaco is a very tight circuit that makes overtaking nearly impossible, so, if you have a 25.7 second lead with 14 laps to go, it is almost a certainty that you will cross the finish line first. We need to add, to the lead, the fact that Lewis Hamilton was cruising to almost certain victory when the Mercedes team blunder occurred. 108.28.105.194 (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Even Mercedes can't override this. He could have been 7 laps ahead on the restart but no one can say that he would or wouldn't have won. It's not difficult to understand. Speculation and crystal balling don't belong in an encyclopedia. Twirlypen (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, aren't we supposed to report what reliable sources report? Mercedes can't override what? Expert opinion is that he would have won. It's not difficult to understand. We report what expert sources reported in reliable sources tell us. 108.28.105.194 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See above. Expert opinions also agree that Senna would have broken all records and won 8 titles had he not died. Mercedes saying he would have won is simply a team supporting their driver. This is getting ridiculous. The only factual, reliably sourced outcome is that the pit move cost him first place. Anything beyond that is speculative and crystal, regardless of any expert status of someone saying what they think would have happened. Twirlypen (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Article is much better now, with appropriate attention going to the event that determined the final outcome more than any other. Whether it is explicitly stated that "Hamilton would have won" or not, is mostly irrelevant. But until yesterday, someone reading the artikle would have grotten away with a very skewed impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.138.126 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Race details in the lead

Tricky business. While it is true that 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix features race details in the lead section, one might argue that those are "historically significant" since it decided the title, which the events here might not. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one here putting it up for debate instead of edit-warring it back and forth? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick review of Grand Prix articles with Featured Article status, e.g. 2008 Brazil, 2008 Hungary, 1994 San Marino, as listed on the Wikiproject F1 page, indicates that either race details or deaths and injuries are in the lead of every article. Twirlypen seems to be marching to the beat of a different drummer. As I'm not good at dealing with editors who have article ownership issues, I'll leave you to "debate" with Twirlypen, Zwerg Nase. Good luck! 108.28.105.194 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I will make a suggestion for a lead later tonight, trying to bring both views together. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

IP, I'd consider assuming good faith when having a discussion with an editor you don't agree with, especially when you start tossing around ownership accusations. If you'd like to instead present a case as to why a misjudgement by Mercedes costing Hamilton the lead is historically significant (as in, why it would be lead content worthy years from now), I will gladly listen and consider your opinions and work with you to come to a concensus. However, I will NOT get drawn into a pissing match.

I don't see this being so significant in the future, so why don't we go back and add how mid-race leaders lost the lead in every race article lead?? 2008 Brazil decided a championship, and 1994 San Marino was obviously overshadowed by the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger. 2008 Hungary lead is way too excessively detailed for a race that has no historical value aside from being Kovalainen's first victory. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of what's in the lead there could be removed entirely as it's discussed later in the article and it'd still retain its FA status. Twirlypen (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Further, regarding your revision summary, I used injuries/deaths as an example. A first win (such as Vettel's win with a Toro Rosso [also the team's first and only win {also setting a record for youngest winner}] in 2008 Italy), a 50th pole (such as Vettel in 2013 Italy [which for some reason has since been deleted]), or any kind of rare occurrence (such as a racing ending with a red flag as in 1984 Monaco or 2014 Japan) are all historically significant. If you're not sure, either add it per WP:BOLD and see if there are any objections, (which there obviously are in this case) and then form a concensus if there are any, or start a discussion on the talk page to get opinions from other editors. Twirlypen (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess that is because it was Vettel's 40th, not 50th pole. Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right. It was Red Bull's 50th, not Vettel's. Twirlypen (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Monaco Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Techtri (talk · contribs) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Were there two or three practice sessions? Near the start it mentions "the first of two free practice sessions" and then later talks about "The third practice on Saturday morning". You might need to explain what Q2 and Q3 are at their first appearance, or better still word it in a way that doesn't use these jargon terms. Also, these are not actionable for a Good Article, but I wanted to mention that the the background section is quite 'choppy' thanks to the headers splitting everything up into one or two paragraph sentences, and that normally each driver and team name would be wikilinked only at the first occurrence, not every time (WP:REPEATLINK).

As for the practice sessions: I added a general sentence at the beginning which should make it a lot clearer. As for Q2 and Q3, I feel that since I have introduced how the abbreviations work when I wrote The first part (Q1), it should be understandable that what Q2 and 3 are. I tried to make the background section less choppy by removing the subsection headers and fuse the track infos into one paragraph. As for the repeat links... This always breaks my heart because I feel that WP:REPEATLINK does not really apply to how people read a WP-article. Let's say someone goes to the article and only reads the race report (which probably a lot of people will do), then they will have to search the entire article for a Wikilink. I therefore have the habit of wikilinking something every time it appears for the first time in each section. But I concur, I cannot bend the rules however I please, so I'll look through it, while maintaining my stand that my way is better ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeated links are taken care of.Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Background section looks much better now. Could you also have a look at the line "which many commentators[30][31]" at the start of the post-race section. "Many commentators" is 'weasely', particularly when both references are about the same quote given by the team principal rather than a commentator. Are you able to name (and reference) some other commentators who had this view like you've done with Coulthard? Techtri (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, there has been debate about this on the talk page. Most people in the project seemed satisfied with the solution I found, but I can see how it might meet WP:WEASEL. I would answer that while both sources refer to the same quote by Wolff, they make the statement that it cost Hamilton the victory on their own account. Keith Collantine from F1Fanatic can definitely be called a commentator. Since there is no author given at PlanetF1, I changed that source to one from The Guardian, where Paul Weaver, another acknoledged F1 commentator, says the same. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't we drop the "many", and just report the people that gave the opinion? [1]? Techtri (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Zwerg Nase (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No other major objections in this area, changing to a pass. Techtri (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   These practice and qualifying paragraphs are thin on references, and features plenty of statements like "impressive", "disappointing", "surprised the paddock", "prominent", "successful" and "disappointing" which would seem to be opinions that need referencing and/or rewording/toning down to make them sound more factual. Generally, I'd consider F1Fanatic and Planet F1 to be a bit borderline when it comes to being considered reliable sources, and this article relies quite heavily on them at the moment.

I rephrased or sourced the objectionable statements. As for F1Fanatic, its use as a reliable source has been discussed several times within the Project, coming to the conclusion that we can consider it to be reliable (see here and here). There have been no discussions about PlanetF1, but I'd apply the same rules here, none of the information I find here and backcheck with reliable sources elsewhere have been proven to be unreliable, so I use it whenever it runs an article I need. Same applies to Autosport (I now added some links from them), which is also generally considered reliable within the Project. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those links, but my reading of them didn't exactly leave me convinced that F1Fanatic is considered reliable - the first has three people commenting, two who say use it if you really can't find an alternative and one who reckons it's OK. The second has six comments, two people who reckons it's OK and four who advise against it. If you've verified it against other reliable sources, why not just use those as the sources for the article? Also on the subject of references, could you check the source used for the pitlane speed limit in the background section - it appears to relate to the 2013 event. Techtri (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More sourcing issues I've noticed - "The second Williams of Felipe Massa completed a disappointing Saturday for the English squad" is backed up by a source that makes no mention of disappointment. In the post-race section the sentence "Indeed, almost half the field pitted when the safety car was deployed, just as Hamilton did." is backed up by a reference which states that more than half the teams took the opportunity to pit one of their cars which isn't the same thing. Techtri (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

About f1Fanatic: What those posts state is that they like to use F1Fanatic when they find something there that autosport.com does not post or if they want to have a broader base for their references. To me, I personally prefer F1Fanatic over autosport, especially when it comes to the practice and qualifying reports, because you can find no page on the internet that has more detailed reports than them. What I said about PlanetF1 was not that I had checked this particular information against other sources, but rather that having checked their information against other sources in general, I found them to be just as reliable. Concerning the pit speed limit, I added two new sources that should cover it. I changed the wording of Williams' qualifying to "problematic", which suits better to the source given. I also changed the sentence about the number of teams pitting under the safety car.Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

My issue with F1Fanatic is that it self-describes as a blog written primarily by one contributor ([2]) - WP:BLOGS states "self-published media, such as...personal or group blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources.". By comparison, Autosport is a magazine that has been published by a reputable publisher since 1950, with professional staff and contributors. Techtri (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Largely not acceptable does not mean generally not acceptable. In the context of the Formula One Project, the blog is generally accepted, as is proven by its use in other GAs, such as 2012 Formula One season. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right in that it doesn't mean unacceptable in all cases, but it does shift the burden of proof to the person claiming they it is acceptable. The GA review of 2012 Formula One season shows the reviewer there had concerns regarding F1Fanatic's reliability; it appears the review was left on hold for three weeks largely because of this issue, it didn't get addressed, and then the article got passed with a note advising to use other sources in future. A GA review that questioned the source and accepted in good faith without any proof of reliability, and two WikiProject discussions with no clear consensus reached isn't proof. I see you've added other sources alongside, but the GA criteria is "all in-line citations are from reliable sources", so if read literally, it would still be a problem. I guess I'm going to change it to a pass it as it's a minor issue given the article appears fully sourced from other sites, but in case this article is used in future as 'proof' that this site is acceptable, I'll state here that I haven't considered it as such during this review. Techtri (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Having found more suitable sources, I replaced all references to PlanetF1 with ones to sources that are definitely considered reliable. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The background section misses out any detail on the state of play coming into the race (who's leading the championship, how have previous races gone etc.). How long did each practice session last? How long did each of the three parts of qualifying last? Post-race what effect did this race have on the championship?

Added the respective information. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, to my knowledge it looks to cover all the major aspects now. Changing this to a Pass. Techtri (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

EDIT: Apologies for missing this first time round, but I believe the article would fail (1b) also, as the lead doesn't meet the MoS criteria. At present, the lead primarily covers material that isn't in the article body itself (championship standings for example), and it isn't really a concise summary of the major points of the remainder of the article - there's no mention of anything that took place in the race for example. Techtri (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased the lead, moving background information into the background part and adding a sentence about the major incident in the race. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The pit lane speed limit reference is from when the World Motor Sport Council ratified the reduction in speed following the 2013 German Grand Prix pit lane incident involving Mark Webber. The ratification wasn't temporary and doesn't change season-to-season unless otherwise specified at subsequent WMSC meetings. It should stand as a credible source for the content specified. Twirlypen (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you also chip in your opinion on F1Fanatic as a reliable source? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A rule change in 2013 wouldn't necessarily apply to a 2015 race, that source alone didn't rule out a subsequent rule change, but I'm happy now that it cites that source for the reasoning and the other source to confirm it's still in place as of 2015. Techtri (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reviewer has a point on that one. While we largely accept it in the community/project as most of the news coming from there does hold water, in the end it is a blog, and if we are to improve the quality of the article in terms of a legitimate, encyclopediac manner, then F1Fanatic should be backed up by more credible sources. I'm not saying they should be replaced entirely, only backed up if challenged in a review, such as the case here. Twirlypen (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Then again, I don't see that the reviewer is challenging the content of the source, just its bare nature. And the fact remains: F1Fanatic is, in my opinion, the best source for practice reports since they are the most detailed I find. So if I pull them away, the article's quality is going to suffer. I guess that's what you call a dilemma... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Which was why I said back them up with something else, not replace them entirely. Twirlypen (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I did so. @Techtri: is everything in order now? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm an idiot.. putting the Austrian GP practice reports in the Monaco article. I'll fix that right away... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't really leave it on hold any longer, so with only a very minor remaining objection, I'll update to a pass. See under the referencing section for my 'disclaimer' in doing so regarding F1Fanatic as a reliable source. Techtri (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted. I will try to use other sources in the future, whenever possible. Thank you again for your thorough work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)