Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/2008 Japanese Grand Prix

Detail level

The points given by Laser brain and Ling.Nut about the level of detail in the article raise some important questions about the nature of the article, which should be answered to a reasonable consensus before I overhaul the article. I am quite new to both Wikipedia and the FAC process, so forgive me if I am going the wrong way with this.

It is my belief that a certain level of detail is necessary in the article; no-one could go away from the race without thinking about Coulthard's crash, Kubica and Raikonnen's battle in the closing laps or Massa's collision with Bourdais. Yes, some of the incidents in the race happened further down the field and did not affect the podium, but I think their importance speaks for themselves.

Imagine, if I could indulge your minds for a moment, that you are a fluent English speaking Brazilian, and you want to know about your country's three drivers, Massa, Piquet and Barrichello. Massa, while second in the Championship, finished in eighth (but was promoted to seventh). Piquet had his best race of the season (and I include Germany in that) and took fourth. Barrichello finished in 13th simply because his car didn't cut muster. Imagine further that you have no real interest in F1, but that you heard it was a good race and wanted to know how your drivers went, so where do you go? Why, Wikipedia, of course. You notice a little bronze star at the top right of the article, and think "wow. An FA. This'll have what I'm looking for." So you scroll down, and find... nothing. It's been purged. Piquet couldn't make the podium, he's basically irrelevant in the Championship, so he's not needed. Massa? Seventh. What's that good for? You feel sorry for Barrichello with his crappy car, and yet he's not mentioned, only the classification table says he came 13th, no more. So what do you, as this Brazilian, a member of the "general audience", get out of the article? Nothing.

If you've got to this point in this mini-essay, I congratulate you. My verbosity has always had titanic proportions, but I try to split that off from my article work. I believe I have here. I like the detail, I think it helps make the article comprehensive and useful as a source of quality information. However, if consensus does not end up agreeing with me on this, I will take a few hours off to redraft appropriate sections in one of my sandboxes. I like the article as it is, but this is not the Apterygial show, this is FAC, so let's make sure we get the best possible article out of this. Apterygial 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will acknowledge that I see your point. You've swayed me enough that I'm thinking the level of detail is not a deal-breaker. I struck my oppose and two of my bullets, but I would appreciate your considering my other two. I can't support yet until I've had time to examine the prose in greater detail. --Laser brain (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very kind, and I will return your commitment to flexibility with some of my own. Apterygial 04:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)