Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Schumacher/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

Michael Schumacher

edit
former fac (correcting-incorrectly archived)

This has had a copyedit, 2 PR and a review or all refs in the last few weeks so I'm sure enough has been done to make it a FAC. Buc 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Why is the career section organized the way it is WRT the year splits? It seems sort of random? Why do 1991-1993 (a 3 year spread) and then 1994-1995 (2 years) and then 1996-1999 (four years)? It seems sort of arbitrary. Also, some of these titles use ndashes and some use hyphens. Pick one and stick to it. See TOC for the problem this causes.

    • Done

Otherwise the article seems good, but I want to see a better explanation for why the above was done before I give my full support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not bad, but I have some concerns:
    • The lead could be a bit longer, per WP:LEAD it should have three to four paragraphs. Right now there is only one sentence that describes his F1 history really ("After winning two championships with Benetton, Schumacher moved to the Ferrari and won five consecutive drivers' titles with them."), the rest is mostly analysis and records, and other things are mentioned that night not be as notable in comparison (ambassador for UNESCO).
      • This has been discussed at length on the talk page. Prior to this it was felt that the lead was too long so a lot of the stuff you mentioned was removed. Buc 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early years is a bit short as well, only one paragraph dealing with his childhood.
      • Is anymore really needed. It's not a major subject. Buc 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, normally more information about the early life would be typical for a biographical FA. One the German page you can read for example that he already met future competitors like Senna, Frentzen, Heidfeld or Häkkinen during his kart years, or that he started with a kart licence from Luxenbourg for financial reasons and because it allowed younger drivers. Also, his manager's (Willi Weber) role is not pointed out enough imho. He basically discovered him, later financed his early carrer almost on his own and had a ten year contract awarding him 20% of Schumachers earnings. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't disagree with this view, that period of his life is usually given a fair amount of prominence, with some authors making links between the early 'family' nature of his racing and the later Ferrari set-up (would you believe!). Willi Weber did not discover Schumacher, btw, I don't think they linked up until FOrmula 3, several years after Schumacher started racing seriously. I can add another paragraph to fill that section out a bit. 4u1e 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done
  • The description of his career could use more analysis, I think it would be difficult for people with no prior knowledge to understand why he preformed better in some seasons than in others. For instance, in 2002 and 2004 a lot of statistics are provided, but it's never mentioned that his car was widely considered superior to the rest of the field. Same in 2005, here I would expect something about the inferior Bridgestone tyres that season.
  • Helmet picture is a bit small, also I think it would be preferable to include both of his helmet designs side by side.
  • "delivered a vocal performance" sounds a bit strange, I don't think he sang in the film.
    • Done
  • Images formating is not very clean, a lot of different sizes. -- EnemyOfTheState 13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
    • Oppose - I think there are subtle POV problems. Perhaps this is a legacy of the editing of the now banned User:Ernham. eg, it points out that in 1992-93 and 1996-97 and 2005, that his car was not good, but does not state that in the other years he did have the best car.. so it gives the impression that if he wins -> best driver; if he loses -> bad car.
    • In particular, the 2002 and 2004 cars were probably the most dominant technical machines in F1 history. It also doesn't mention criticism that Schumacher has a subservient team-mate, or that allegedly, telemetry from his teammates car is given to him but not the other way around (according to Herbert anyway). It should probably be noted that he enjoyed the most reliable car of all time as well, before Bahrain 2005, he went ~58 races without mechanical failure, and most other drivers maybe go only 7-8 without a mechanical failure, or maybe only 2-3 depending on the car... Other thing is that the article is not sourced properly, eg in the 2003 section, only the tyre issue and the first three races are sourced. The others are not sourced, and maybe wrong, eg 16 not 13 points. I also randomly picked up an error where it implied that there was only on SC period at Monaco 2004.
    • There are some other interesting issues like uneven coverage, with 2005 and 2006 getting a lot more than the others. Also, the lead is pretty flowery, it doesn't mention that he was widely criticised for his actions in 94 and 97,
      • It does mention 97. 94 would be too POV since officially nothing happened. Buc 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually criticism of 94 is mentioned as well, specifically that "many F1 insiders blamed Schumacher for the crash". Been in there for ages, in the face of much opposition from you know who. Agree that 05 and 06 are disproportionately long, but the point about 94 and 97 doesn't stand. 4u1e 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • and not only did he cause the collisions, he was determined to have done so deliberately. I think it should also be noted that his winning average is not the best....and is much lower than Fangio. Simply because of the safety (as well as WWII cutting into Fangio's career), in the old days people got killed a lot, perhaps 20% of the competitors were killed every year, whereas in the last 25 years, only 2 people have died. Thus a modern driver is going to last longer and win more. eg, I think Schumacher in an olden day likely would have been killed at the 99 UK GP, if not earlier; I'm guessing Alonso would've been killed at Brazil03 before he had even won a race in one of those old things. At present, I think the lead is a little misleading. The bit about Brazil06 seems a bit over the top, they are likely to be nice to him since he is being farewelled. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the lead is pretty flowery, it doesn't mention that he was widely criticised for his actions in 94 and 97, and not only did he cause the collisions, he was determined to have done so deliberately. - It was determimed for 97, but not for 94 or he would be DSQ.
    Simply because of the safety (as well as WWII cutting into Fangio's career), in the old days people got killed a lot, perhaps 20% of the competitors were killed every year, whereas in the last 25 years, only 2 people have died. - Where is that connected with Schumacher's carier?
    Thus a modern driver is going to last longer and win more. eg, I think Schumacher in an olden day likely would have been killed at the 99 UK GP, if not earlier; I'm guessing Alonso would've been killed at Brazil03 before he had even won a race in one of those old things. Pointless speculations.
    I think it should also be noted that his winning average is not the best....and is much lower than Fangio. This should be mentioned in Fangio's article, not here. --Sporti 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that all this analysis should be in the article, I'm simply saying why I think it should be pointed out that he does not have the highest average, since in the modern era, there are a lot more events (in any sport) each year as well as more longevity, and so a medium quality competitor will win more than even the best guys of yesteryear. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the logic is faulty: the longer your career, the harder it is to have a high average. Giancarlo Baghetti would have had a 100% win rate if he'd retired after his first world championship race! 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The second Peer Review has only been running for about a week, and there is still a large amount of work to be done the referencing, as I suggested on the talk page a short while ago. I am still in the middle of working on this and in my opinion the article has been nominated before it is ready. Many of the web references are not suitable, and over the next week I will be replacing them with refs from the six or so books on him that have so far been written. 4u1e 23 April 2007, 12:34

    *Comment * "It also doesn't mention criticism that Schumacher has a subservient team-mate, or that allegedly, telemetry from his teammates car is given to him but not the other way around (according to Herbert anyway)." - That would need a source, but I'm not 100% sure this should be mentioned at all. Unless you make an entire section on him being treated as nº 1 within the team.

      • I think that can be sourced; it's a very well known comment and oft mentioned in my experience. It probably ought to be included. If I may issue some advice. Take a breather. Forget that you're aiming for the coveted FA star, and imagine all you're doing is taking some input on how to improve the article. Come back, and reread this debate. I found it to be hugely useful and interesting, as much as the average article, and I think you'll find some great tips here. It would also be worthwhile, I suspect, getting a translation of the German article if you haven't already. --kingboyk 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think it should also be noted that his winning average is not the best....and is much lower than Fangio." - I don't think this should be mentioned at all. He won 7 championships in 14 full years (not counting the first year, in which he raced 4 or 5 times and the season in which he broke his leg). Why is it so important to say that? What does it matter? And you imply the more time a driver races (because they don't die early), the easier it is to have an high average. False. Schumacher raced 200 more races than Fangio, it would be impossible to beat Fangio's average and will be forever. The lower the number of races, the easier it is to maintain an high average.
      • No, I meant that if you play for longer, then you will win more total races, not that your percentage will increase (all things staying the same). As in, if you get 18 races per season instead of 6 in the old days, then if Schumacher was racing with a dominant car in 2004, he won maybe 15/18 races? but if there were only six races a year like in the old days, he could not accumulate that much anyway. In Fangio's case he won 5 out of 8, so he was winning at a higher rate. The average in any case is simply a measure of success rate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it doesn't mention that he was widely criticised for his actions in 94 and 97, and not only did he cause the collisions, he was determined to have done so deliberately." - It is mentioned he was widely criticized in the controversy section. And saying he done it deliberately in 94 is POV. In my opinion, he didn't do anything wrong. But that's my opinion.

    Other than these points, I think your suggestions are good.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Contrariwise, I think Schumacher made a deliberate, cynical move in 1994. Despite that, I agree with Serte (and Sporti above) above about the reporting of the incident in this article: There is no clear agreement among notable sources that it was deliberate, or that it was Schumacher's fault, so the position taken in the article at present is the correct, and neutral, one. 4u1e 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This video 1 desribres how Schumacher's driving tehnic in the corners was different to majority of other drivers' by comparing telemetry data between him and Herbert, who also explains the difference. --Sporti 10:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It terms of content, I think that all the above reviewers are more capable than me to comment. I just wanted to make a stylistical remark. There is an inconsistency with the inline citations: most of them are after the pm (correct!), but some of them spread around the text are before the pm (not in acord with MoS).--Yannismarou 10:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Punctuation mark, I imagine. 4u1e 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
    Comment: I'm not sure Blungyen's points are addressed, although to be fair as he hasn't responded, it's a bit hard to tell. You could try dropping him a line about it. There are also still dubious references like the current number 27, which is taken from SimHQ, a website dedicated to computer simulations and was written by this guy. I'm sure he's a lovely man, but I don't reckon he counts as a reliable source. I'm still working on hard copy refs, by the way. 4u1e 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a book so I can't really check that. I could try to find another sourse on the net (found this [1] and this [2]). And I really don't know what to do about Blungyen since as you say he's not responded. Buc 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I should have said, I've fixed that one. The book's fine. The previous ref was from a website, which is fine in itself, but it wasn't a motorsport website, and the author doesn't appear to have any more authority than, for example, me or you! Re Blungyen, if you've made honest attempts to meet his comments and he doesn't respond to them then there's not much more you can do. I'm still not happy that all the refs are OK though, so I'm withholding my support until I've worked through them. Checking the refs is what takes the time, so I can't give you a list of ones I'm not happy with any quicker than I can fix them myself. 4u1e 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that I was away for a while. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Full dates are supposed to be wikilinked (WP:MOSNUM). Date ranges should be separated by ndash (see WP:DASH). Awards and honors section is choppy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean by "choppy"? Also Does anyone eles think some of the section could have better titles. Like arn't "Awards and honours" the same thing, same issue with "Controversies and criticism" and "Family and off-track life". Buc 05:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Short, loosely or un- connected phrases and paragraphs, is how I understand it. Try to make the links between the ideas contained in each phrase, sentence and paragraph clearer. 4u1e 12:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a note; please do NOT strike other reviewers' comments. Per the instructions at FAC, reviewers will revisit and strike their own comments as they deem items completed. By striking my comments, you make it hard for me to know what I've re-checked and what remains to be checked. The items I mentioned above have been corrected; I haven't looked at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appoliges. The reason I do that is because what I find sometimes is that users will make comments on things which need to be fixed and then don't come back to strike them after they have been fixed even if you say so on there talk page. Buc 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. It has improved, but be vigilant. It wasn't hard to find little issues such as:
      • "Schumacher won 9 out of the 17 races"—Remove "out". Single-digit numbers are normally spelt out.
      • "1994-1995"—For ranges, use an en dash. Who wants to see squidgy little structures? This involves many subheadings. "1994–95".
      • "also include"—Remove one.
      • "fifth place finish"—It's in BrEng? If so, hyphenate the double adjective.
      • Audit the whole thing for "alsos".

    "His best result was a fifth place finish in his second race, the Italian Grand Prix, in which he also outpaced his teammate and three-time World Champion Nelson Piquet." Does this imply that he outpaced these participants in the previous race? Tony 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, trust me: remove "also" from that sentence for a stronger flow and no loss of meaning. Only use it if it's absolutely necessary for the cohesion; a good example is the second sentence of Dominik Hašek.
    • Oppose for now:
      • Why do some seasons get so much more coverage than others? 1992, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006 all seem to be covered fairly extensively, while the paragraphs on 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2004 are all pretty short. Could you expand those a bit?
      • I'm generally not a big fan of "criticism" sections, but I think it really doesn't make any sense in this case. Why not just move the information from that section into the paragraph of the appropriate season? I think that would make the whole a nicer read.--Carabinieri 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reaffirm oppose Since it is a bit messy up there, I still feel the team orders part is POV. Team orders have always existed in F1 but it seems to downplay the extent to which Ferrari use them. Teams like Williams and McLaren, they do not explicitly at the start of a season or contract deliberately focus on one driver. The drivers are free to race until one of them cannot win the championship anymore and the other guy needs help. At times, they have lost their championship because their drivers split points and a third guy from another team won in a three way race. Williams and McLaren have always sought the best two possible drivers and let them race. Ferrari does not. A mediocre driver is sought, and they sign a contract agreeing to let Schumacher win (Irvine), the telemetry thing (Herbert) most notably. They are explicitly and obviously focused on Schumacher, at the detriment of the second driver. This is not mentioned in the article much. Team orders have always been a big part of attention put on Schumacher, and here we only have one paragraph. The controversy section is only about 60% larger than his private life. This violates UNDUE, since if you look at coverage in the news, the incidents etc, probably have 10 times more coverage. Another problem is that Ferrari is often associated with bias by the FIA. True it also involves Ferrari generally, but Schumacher is an alleged beneficiary so it also has to be noted. Things like the 2003 Euro push, the 2004 Italian non-push of Alonso, 2005 non push of Heidfeld, the 2003 Michelin tyre ruling, the 2006 non flexible wing ruling, the 2004 RTT ban on BAR, 2006 mass damper ban on Renault, 2006 penalty on Alonso, 2003 penalty on JPM etc. The politics isn't covered enough. Also, the part about Ferrari being transformed should also note that his success is in large part due to the unparalled technical supremacy (like no mech failures for 3 years), which Schumacher can't be directly responsible for. There are also reffing problems. See the 2001 paragraph. It is sourced to a BBC fan mail page. That's not allowed. There are some other parts which are not sourced properly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a bunch of points, so I'll break them out, if that's OK, for clarity:

    1. Team orders/NPOV: We've got to be a little bit careful here. In reacting to your points we could end up implying that there was something underhand about Ferrari's use of team orders. There wasn't. They did use them, but this was 100% legal at the time and team orders actually played a very significant part in the history of this sport. McLaren and Williams chose to follow a different approach, but that was their choice, right or wrong. Other teams have also chosen to focus on just the one driver, Brabham under Bernie Ecclestone for instance, so it's hardly unique to Ferrari. Obviously team orders did give MS an advantage, and by 2004 had become controversial, so they should be mentioned, but we musn't tip the balance too far the other way. Don't forget the furore about McLaren's use of team orders in the 1997 European Grand Prix and the 1998 Australian Grand Prix, without which Mika Hakkinen might not have gone on to win his first world champsionship! What do you feel needs to be added here to restore balance? 4u1e 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Length of controversy section violates WP:UNDUE. I find this a slightly odd claim, to be honest (Sorry! ;-)). The weight given to a topic is not just about the number of words - even having a controversy section says that this is a serious matter for this particular topic. I don't see particular benefit in going into all controversies involving Schumacher to the nth degree. Every time two drivers make contact they tend to disagree over whose fault it was. I think we've got the really serious, career defining incidents covered in sufficient detail here. Is there a serious incident missing from that section? I don't think the pushing incidents count - I believe that in general they were legal, the unfairness consists in the greater attention he got from marshals than other drivers.4u1e
    3. Ferrari is often associated with bias by the FIA - yes it is. It's an issue which can be discussed in some depth, as I've seen some journalists (Mark Hughes from memory) attempt to debunk that notion. Fwiw I believe that it is true, but it hasn't stopped with Schumacher's departure (Ferrari flexi floors earlier this year) and pre-dates Schumacher's time at the team: The retention of V12 engines in 1989 for example or (IIRC) fuel tank size in the early 1990s (to keep those thirsty V12s happy), or traction control in the first two races of 1994 (after it was banned). On that topic, the rules were changed in the early 2000s (many believe!) to reduce Ferrari's superiority, so this is hardly a simple matter! It should be covered in the Scuderia Ferrari article in more detail and mentioned fairly briefly here - although it will be difficult to reference properly, because it is, almost by definition, speculation. You are not going to find a source confirming that the FIA actively skews its own rules to favour or disfavour Ferrari! 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Ref'ing problems - I agree, although I emphatically disagree with the examples Blnguyen restored last night, which were completely inappropriate, as far as I can see. It's something I'm working on, but I've allowed myself to be distracted by other things :(. 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In summary, more re-drafting to take a little more of the positive gloss off, and the refs do still need work, but I think to follow all of Blungyen's suggestions would go into subjects better covered elsewhere in detail, and push the article to the other side of neutral. 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2003 Euro push, the 2004 Italian non-push of Alonso, 2005 non push of Heidfeld - As of 2004 push is illegal even if the car is in a dangerous spot.
    What's this got to do with the article? Buc 07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the 2003 Michelin tyre ruling, the 2006 non flexible wing ruling, the 2004 RTT ban on BAR, 2006 mass damper ban on Renault, 2006 penalty on Alonso, 2003 penalty on JPM - Not directly related to Schumacher. --Sporti 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They are really because they affected his chances of winning the WC. Buc 07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Michael_Schumacher/archive1&oldid=1138547678"