Talk:Max Verstappen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Verstappen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012244/http://www.fiaf3europe.com/en/news/Max-Verstappen-new-Red-Bull-Junior.html to http://www.fiaf3europe.com/en/news/Max-Verstappen-new-Red-Bull-Junior.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132459/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?sid=44062358&art_id=155136&con_type=1&pp_cat=19 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?sid=44062358&art_id=155136&con_type=1&pp_cat=19

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page archived

Yeap. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"whereas"

I fixed a misused preposition. A disruptive user reverted my change three times without bothering to explain why. A second user has now also undone this common sense edit. The relevant text is this:

"His family has a long association with motor sports. His father, Jos Verstappen, is a Dutch former Formula One driver, whereas his Belgian mother, Sophie Kumpen, competed in karting."

"Whereas" would be used if his mother was not involved in motorsport. When the point of that sentence is that both parents were involved in motorsport, "whereas" makes no sense at all. "While" is correct; "and" would also be correct. There is no way of reading this sentence in which "whereas" is correct. Pe19 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's break this down. Firstly, your claim that using 'whereas' in that sentence indicates his mother didn't participate in motor sport is simply wrong. Those are two separate sentences: 1) he is from a motor sport family; 2) his father is famous for one type whereas his mother is famous for another. The first sentence sets the general picture, the second gives the specifics and the contrast between father and mother. Had it been one continuous sentence that said "most of his family are involved in motor sport, whereas his mother isn't" you might have had a point. However, it doesn't and you don't. Secondly, used as a conjunction (not a preposition...) in that sentence, both Merriam Webster and OED give 'whereas' as a definition for 'while'. However, 'while' can also mean 'during the same time', whereas 'whereas' only means... well, whereas. Pyrope 14:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are failing to understand so many things.

• I did not say that the sentence indicates that his mother didn't participate in motorsport. I said it would be correct if that was what you wanted to indicate. Saying "person X did thing A, whereas person Y also did thing A" does not make sense. It does not indicate that person Y did not do thing A; it simply doesn't make sense.
• If the preceding sentence was "his parents were involved in different branches of motorsport" it might make sense to use "whereas" to contrast the different branches. But the preceding sentence is "His family has a long association with motor sports". The point is not that one parent was in F1 and the other was in karting. What type of motorsport they did is completely irrelevant. The point is that they were both in motorsports. There is no contrast between father and mother.
• "while" can indeed mean "during the same time". It does not mean that in this context, obviously.

The sentence does not make sense with "whereas". I do not see any evidence yet that you understand what the sentence is even for. Pe19 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you simply misread my reply to you. Have another go and then get back to me. Pyrope 17:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What lame trolling! Pe19 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is not trolling, it is a discussion. I ask as you have some huge logic flaws and simple mis-statements in your reply. I'm not quite sure how to respond to someone when they could very well have simply made a mistake. Pyrope 17:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"I'm going to be charitable and assume that you simply misread my reply to you. Have another go and then get back to me" - not trolling? Oh sure. If you were editing in good faith, you would point out the "huge logic flaws". You cannot do that, because a) there aren't any and b) you're not editing in good faith. You've successfully turned the molehill of a simple improvement into a mountain of idiocy with your trolling. Hope you're pleased with yourself. Pe19 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This was a simple statement, not trolling. My reply was clear.

Taking your last point first, you state that ""while" can indeed mean "during the same time". It does not mean that in this context, obviously." Yes? Well the two definitions that OED give for the word 'while' used as a conjunction are 1) "During the time that; at the same time as"; and 2) "whereas". As you dismissed the first "in that context", therefore only the second remains. Yet you then go on to claim that 'whereas' simply doesn't make sense, despite it literally being the only other definition that OED offers. That is a glaring logical flaw. Let's call it Flaw #1.

You also state that there is no contrast between father and mother, yet the sentence gives them two different descriptions. Unless you are arguing that F1 and karting are identical – an absurd proposition as otherwise wouldn't they be called the same thing? – that is a contrast. The existence of two descriptions implies a difference in character, i.e. a contrast. That's Flaw #2.

Following that, you make all sorts of twists and turns to make out that F1 (let's call that thing B), karting (thing C), and motorsport (thing A) are synonymous. They aren't. Similar, yes. Two are a type of the third, yes. But they are not the same. Therefore that sentence has never read "person X did thing A, whereas person Y also did thing A" (using 'thing A' as motorsport, as above), yet you claim that it did. Flaw #3.

And now the doozy. You write "I did not say that the sentence indicates that his mother didn't participate in motorsport. I said it would be correct if that was what you wanted to indicate." You do realize that these directly contradict one other, don't you? Words mean what they mean. If you are reading meaning into a sentence that isn't there, it isn't the fault of the sentence it is a fault in your reading comprehension. Judging by your subsequent edits to the page I think I see where you were trying to get to, but the phrasing as it stood simply didn't mean what you had in your head. Flaw #4.

All the way through this I have been acting in good faith. This is why WP:AGF is an important principle. Please do try to adopt it. Pyrope 20:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And still you troll. I assume incompetence before malice, but no-one could fail so badly to grasp the point of the sentence. Pe19 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, how sad. Run out of logical arguments so now it is just name calling. Never mind. Pyrope 22:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there an acceptable wording that would moot this disagreement? Without even trying hard, I can think of two that would be acceptable to me.

His family has a long association with motor sports. His father, Jos Verstappen, is a Dutch former Formula One driver, and his Belgian mother, Sophie Kumpen, competed in karting.

His family has a long association with motor sports. His father, Jos Verstappen, is a Dutch former Formula One driver. His Belgian mother, Sophie Kumpen, competed in karting.

I have just flipped a coin and it came up heads, meaning alternative #1. I would implement that wording and move on. Usually these things matter a lot more to Wikipedia editors than to Wikipedia readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, the OP seems to have solved the situation anyway, but thanks for your input. Pyrope 20:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 Brazilian Grand Prix and Ocon incident

An encyclopedic article should remain about factual events as much as possible and while representing two sides to a story can be part of this, a single team member voicing some ridiculous conspiracy theory does not represent a second side. Come back when there is some actual evidence for the theory that Ocon deliberately hit Verstappen on Mercedes' orders and then that side can be added to the article. DragonFury (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Nationality, why is the dual nationality being removed?

My addition of Max Verstappen's Belgium Nationality was removed today. I don't get this. Why are we "hiding" that he has a dual nationality? The infobox should show this in my opinion. The fact that he is racing/competing as a Dutch driver can be mentioned in the text. If we hide the dual nationality, we are not portraying the thruth.

There is mentioned in the infobox: "!--Per WP:F1 convention, only includes the nationality driver races under" but on WP:F1 I can find no mentioning/discussion of this (wrong/incorrect (my POV)) "rule"

Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The infobox of articles on F1 drivers only list the nationalities they competed under. His dual nationality certainly needs to be acknowledged somehow. It was included in the lead (just like for his fellow half-Belgian F1 driver) for a long time until someone inexplicably removed it. I reinstated it. Also, using only flags to denote a nationality, like you did, is just not done. If is at odds with all accessibility guidelines.Tvx1 20:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my concern. However, can you point me to the place where the "rule" is stated that in the infobox only the nationality is mentioned under which the driver is racing? Saschaporsche (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The convention is documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions#Drivers (Driver nationality). I believe Verstappen's situation is similar to Grosjean's. The section should probably be updated to describe the general principle, rather than just listing specific cases. Also note that the word "Nationality" in the infobox is linked to FIA_Super_Licence#Nationality_of_drivers, as an indication that it's "licence nationality" rather than "personal nationality". DH85868993 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Saschaporsche (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions#Drivers to describe the general principle, and also added Verstappen (and Stroll) to the list of examples. DH85868993 (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Firsts

All those "youngest to do this", and "youngest to do that" might be okay for the body of the article, but the lead of an article is meant to summarize the content of the body, not to have unique information in an undue amount of detail not covered in the body at all. The word youngest appears ten times in the lead; feels like getting beaten to death with a word. Verstappen is not only a young winner, he's also a winner; there must be other things to say about him. MOS:INTRO says to avoid overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. All of these statistical superlatives should be moved to the body, imho, and summarized in one clause or sentence in the lead. Perhaps something like, "...and holds the distinction as the youngest F1 GP driver in numerous/almost every/twelve categories." That's all you have to say about it in the lead; the body can list all the categories you want. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Implemented the change, by adding subsection "Firsts" to "Racing record" section, and moving most of the long list of firsts to that section. Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Dual nationality 2; Electric Boogaloo

Previous references all stated Verstappen had Belgian nationality when born and had the option to choose between Belgian or Dutch nationality when he turned 18. As per the source Jeroen1961 provided he has chosen the Dutch nationality but the same source also states he had dual nationalities before making that choice. So it seems we have conflicting sources here, in which case I'd prefer to nor rely on this new source as I have my doubts about the credibility of cited source.DragonFury (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Reding through the previous sources does reveal a bit more. Some say he had Belgian nationality exclusively prior to turning 18, but there's one source with a direct quote from his father Jos saying he had dual nationalities, which I'd say is pretty conclusive. The current phrase "Dutch-Belgian-born Dutch" is cumbersome though, maybe a better idea to incorporate that into the article intro in a different way? DragonFury (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There is little doubt that he was born with dual nationality. I suggesta rewrite of the first paragrapgh: Max Emilian Verstappen (Dutch pronunciation: [mɑks eːˈmilijɑn vɛrˈstɑpə(n)]; born 30 September 1997) is a Dutch racing driver currently competing in Formula One, under the Dutch flag, with Red Bull Racing. Born with Belgain-Dutch dual nationality, he made his debut at the 2015 Australian Grand Prix, aged 17 years, 166 days, becoming the youngest driver to compete in Formula One...
SSSB (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with DragonFury that "Dutch-Belgian-born Dutch" is cumbersome, and a rewrite, as suggested by SSSB does justice to the situation with regard to his (formerly dual) nationality, as well as being less cumbersome. Jeroen1961 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced though that the source that Jeroen1961 provided is that conclusive. They only provedprovided their word for the claim. There's nothing from the involved parties themselves. And just how reliable is this source? What worries me the most is their incorrect description of the situation he was confronted with upon becoming a legal adult (i.e. turning 18). They claim he had to choose between being Belgian or Dutch, but that is simply wrong. As he had (and still has) the birth right to both nationalities according to their laws, he also had the choice to remain a dual national. That's for instance what other F1 drivers like Nico Rosberg, Pascal Wehrlein, Romain Grosjean, Lance Stroll, Alexander Albon and Lando Norris did. Rosberg for instance to this day is both a German and Finnish national and citizen.Tvx1 11:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In this interview Max Verstappen is asked if he is Belgium or Dutch. Which he reply with. " I have only a Dutch Passport"[1]

Lobo151 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything. He can still have Belgian nationality but not a Belgain passport.
SSSB (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Belgain nationality law but if the article is incorrect with its quoting of Belgain nationality law (I know that Dutch nationality doesn't require you to choose being a Dutch dual-national myself) then we have to seriously question the source in question. We need conclusive evidence before we can write off his Belgian nationality. Have we got it? Finally, him saying he considers himself to be only Dutch (or something to that effect) doesn't make it true legally.
SSSB (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, if he didn't have to choose a (and therefore reject the other) nationality it's dubious that he would. What benefit does such an action carry?
SSSB (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Belgian law doesn’t require one to choose either. This is evidenced by the other two current F1 drivers, Stroll and Norris, who have a dual nationalty consisting of Belgian and another. On a personal level I have a brother in law who has dual Belgian and Indian nationality as well as citizenship.Tvx1 12:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to this interview (in Dutch) where Verstappen states he only possesses a Dutch passport: https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/vragenvuur-max-verstappen-red-bull-f1-1041049/3102027/. Nevertheless, it remains possible that Verstappen is still also a Belgian national, as Belgian law allows dual or multiple nationalities for citizens who were born in Belgium. So maybe it would be better to rewrite the text to 'Belgian-Dutch' or 'Dutch-Belgian', as it cannot be ruled out at this point that Verstappen actually kept his Belgian nationality, rather than renouncing it officially. Jeroen1961 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If it can not be ruled out then the current form of the article (where we say he is now only dutch) is WP:OR
SSSB (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as no source can be found stating that Verstappen officially renounced his Belgian nationality. Sources can be found stating that Verstappen possesses a Dutch passport. But like you said, this does not automatically mean that he no longer has the Belgian nationality. It does seem unlikely that Verstappen would have given up his Belgian nationality, despite the fact that he 'feels more Dutch' than Belgian. Jeroen1961 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Image revision

I have updated the profile image to a more recent one . This one is of Verstappen racing a Red Bull RB15 at the 2019 Austrian Grand Prix-the same one used on the wiki page of that car--Brozovera (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In the infobox we prefer an image of the actual person the article deals with.Tvx1 22:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal life edit

I have made an edit to include information about Verstappen's personal relationship with Kelly Piquet which he has confirmed on his instagram as is noted in the article reference I added. --Brozovera (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Detailing every relationship is WP:FANCRUFT. Please cite a secondry, reliable (so not WP:DAILYMAIL) to support the idea that this is noteworthy in his article
SSSB (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have used Verstappen's own instagram as the source to confirm the relationship information.--Brozovera (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Which does not support this being noteworthy. This looks a lot like WP:NOTNEWS.
SSSB (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes it a primary source, not a secondary one.Tvx1 19:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have used Marca as secondary source to confirm this information--Brozovera (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s not about confirmation. It’s about noteworthyness. It’s about significant coverage in mainstream reliable sources. See WP:SIGCOV.Tvx1 22:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yougest Grand Slam winner

Within the record section of this page one of the records listed is that of being the youngest Grand Slam winner as per the 2021 Austrian Grand Prix. This is not listen in the Max Verstappen Achievements box at the bottom of the page. I was looking into adding it, but the box is locked for editing, so I would like to request to either receive editing rights for this box, or someone add the record in. Krughal (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Krughal. It isn't actually locked. The reason there isn't an edit link is that the box has been created here on this page; it isn't transcluded from a template in the way that the other boxes are. If you edit either the whole page or just the external links section you should be able to add the data that you mention. Pyrope 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2021

Please spell check and grammar chech this document2A00:23C6:B610:C700:C09A:1773:5432:D574 (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Max Verstappen2A00:23C6:B610:C700:C09A:1773:5432:D574 (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC) 2A00:23C6:B610:C700:C09A:1773:5432:D574 (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

number of champions: 1 222.164.123.203 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Anarchyte (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Driver number

Request that driver number is changed to 1, Red Bull have pretty much confirmed it on twitter twitter.com/redbullracing/status/1470140146242756610 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:18FD:DF66:3BDF:FAD4 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If/when it is confirmed that Max will use number 1 next year, I suggest that we update the "Car number" field to "33. (2021)<br>1. (2022)", to discourage edit-warring over whether it should show "33" or "1" between now and the end of the calendar year. DH85868993 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Championship: 1 148.75.20.214 (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Oops, hit the wrong button. Already done, actually. —Sirdog (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Revert unverified Religion / Mother's prayer addition?

A recent edit added some claims about Max's religion, and how his mother prays before each race. While it can be verified that she lit a candle before the last race, I couldn't find a source that states she does this for every race. Both of these pieces of information came from a questionable source, to which the link has since been removed. The NY times link that was added in there can't be verified without a paid account. I believe this edit should be reverted completely.

This line should be removed:

″Verstappen is Catholic; his mother Sophie would go to church before a Grand Prix to light a prayer candle for her son.[13]″

CerbrusNL (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Anarchyte (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Since this was added back in, does the source specifically say that Max Verstappen himself is Catholic? Or just that his mother is? It would be strange to claim Max himself is Catholic just because his mother is and lit candles for him. I can't access the source at the moment and check myself. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been removed again by Hydrogenation. @Weaveravel: Until we can find a source that definitively states Verstappen is Catholic, please do not re-add the content. Anarchyte (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Fair enough, the claim that Max himself is Catholic isn't from an ideal source. However the (reliable) Times source does state that her mother is and lighted a candle, "before each grand prix", which confirms that she did. Although the full article can't be read without logging in, you can get a glimpse of this excerpt from the google search result for that page, so you can verify. So I believe the part about his mother is totally valid. --WR 12:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, even if a credible source is found I don't think his religion should be included in the article. It's completely irrelevant to Verstappen's career and public life.DragonFury (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Pole position award 2021

Add 2021 pole position award 2001:1C01:4B80:DA00:6457:CACA:D9C9:442B (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

190.139.141.98 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Not clear what edit you are requesting.Tvx1 20:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

"He finished the 2019 and 2020 championships in third place" this quote is out of place. It needs to be in an above paragraph or removed altogether. Andersondesilva1234 (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal life and relationships

Just because the man is in a relationship with someone does not mean it has to be included in the article. His relationship (regardless with who) is simply not relevant to his notability. His parent's motorsport history; absolutely relevant, because Verstappen is a racing driver himself. His nationality; relevant because he was born in Belgium but races under a Dutch flag, and is widely considered to be the first Dutch driver to win a GP and WDC. Who he's dating; not at all relevant in any way. It has been included in the article before, and was always removed for this exact reason. Stop putting it back in. DragonFury (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that the page isn't named "Racing career of Max Verstappen", it's simply named "Max Verstappen". You appear to be the only one insisting Kelly Piquet is not featured in the article. Perhaps you could expand a bit on why exactly it is not relevant to the article. Not every personal detail has to be included, but his relationship is very public and I don't see why you take such issue with the inclusion of it. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If they become engaged or married that then may become significant. If we include relationships otherwise do we stalk everyone from their first date, or what? This is why every relationship someone famous enters into is not automatically notable. That's Hello magazine, not encyclopaedia, territory. Britmax (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "stalking" and everything to do with Max being in a highly public relationship. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not highly public. Verstappen never talks about his relationship in the media, all the "news" is coming from third party sources and barely credible sites.DragonFury (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You claim it is not highly public, yet they are openly in a relationship. As for sources, foxsports have reported on it. See https://www.foxsports.com.au/motorsport/formula-one/max-verstappens-girlfriend-overcome-with-emotion-amid-f1-mayhem/news-story/2d062d662596c7a17acab11528049ff5 --TylerBurden (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't include details of relationships unless they are noteworthy in some way. How public the relationship is isn't relevant. Find us a source that indicates that this relationship is significantly notable to be mentioned into a biography, and we can add it. If you can't find a source which indicates it is suitable for an enyclopedia, we shouldn't mention it in an encylopedia. This isn't a gossip magazine. SSSB (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems odd to me, but the consensus here is pretty clear. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely wild. As far as I can tell Max Verstappen (whose romantic relationship, as with every human being, is relevant to his personal life) is the only F1 driver with an article in the discussion of which anyone is insisting his romantic partner should not be included in the personal life section. Alex Albon, Valterri Bottas, and Charles Leclerc all have an article that mentions their girlfriend without controversy. Verstappen mentions Kelly Piquet on his social media frequently. She kissed him directly after winning his title in Abu Dhabi - live on the main feed of the F1 race. When their relationship is that public and intertwined with his career and public image it is in no way equivalent to gossip to include it in a description of his personal life. Under such circumstances, his article is incomplete without mentioning his partner. Additionally to all of that, she's the daughter of 3-time WDC Nelson Piquet. F1 is obviously relevant to both their lives and is almost certainly the reason the two got to know each other in the first place. --Califontication (talk) 2:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with more or less everything you just said. Not sure what the deal here is. It's not ″gossip magazine″ when reliable sources have reported on it, if anything it's objective truth which is exactly what Wikipedia is for. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a "gossip magazine" if we mention his relationships just because they exist. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a collection of all information. Until evidence is provided that this relationship is somehow suffiecently note-worthy for a mention on a general encylopedia, I don't see why we should mention it. While I'm here, the following are completely irrelevant to this discussion: who her father is, how we deal with girlfriends on other pages (see WP:OTHERCONTENT), and when and where they kiss are completely irrelevant. The fact that it isn't secret, and he takes her to races aren't irrlevant, but is also insufficent to justify inclusion by itself. SSSB (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How do you define ″evidence that this relationship is sufficiently note-worthy for a mention on a general encyclopedia″? Like do you have any specific examples of what such evidence would be? Of course not every single detail has to be mentioned in the article, but the relationship is evidently noteworthy if it is getting reported on by a reliable source. I am just curious because this is the first time I've seen heavy resistance to such content. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

These from Albon, Bottas and Leclerc should probably be removed as well. Many wrongs don't make a right.Tvx1 21:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific examples would include having children together, proposal/marriage, moving in together. Something to indicate that the relationship would be significant in the life story of Verstappen. Broadly speaking, we want to satify the WP:TENYEARTEST - specifically the second sentence: "In ten years will [Verstappen's relationship with Piquet] still appear relevant?" To me that awnser is an undoubted no. SSSB (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me honestly. While I am still not personally opposed to a small mention of Kelly Piquet, I can also see why it would be too early to include at this stage. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Public image and reception section neutrality

As it currently stands, this recently hugely expanded section is simply a very thinly disguised hagiography. Repetitious, barely contextualized quotes from different talking heads have been used to construct a section that is so POV as to be laughable. Sure, Max has his fans, but there has also been a very significant and extensively argument in the media highlighting his negative traits and behaviours. To have these summarized by a very soft, two sentence paragraph at the end of the section, attributed to only one commentator, means that this section is entirely out of step with the way that Verstappen's driving is discussed in reliable sources. If this section is to remain, the good parts of his driving need to be properly set in context, and the negative parts need to be given due weight with similar contextual emphasis. Pyrope 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree. It reads as though it was written by a fan, not an unbiased spectator. Anarchyte (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Anarchyte This is exactly why YOU are biased. Take a look at Lewis Hamilton's Wikipedia page under the enormous "Driver profile/Reception" section. It is full of praise and not an ounce of critisism except ONE line that says that Hamilton was criticised for his life outside of F1 (Edit: Lol even that isn't criticism, the article cited praises him hahahaha). You people are hilarious. As it stands, Max's reception section now has a much more extensive paragraph of critisism. I added a neutrality tag to Hamilton's Wikipedia page.

Take a gander at Lewis Hamilton's reception section. There's only ONE line of critisism. I was trying to be consistent. What do you say to that? F1V8V10V6 (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I say that the principle of WP:WHATABOUT is one that you should familiarise yourself with. Pyrope 05:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

True, but the fact that there is only one sentence of critisism in Hamilton's Wikipedia reception section is also not right. I also completely disagree with this: "If this section is to remain, the good parts of his driving need to be properly set in context, and the negative parts need to be given due weight with similar contextual emphasis" because you didn't even show how anything ISN'T properly set in context. What needs to be properly set in context? Explain. You're being vague. You need to show evidence that things aren't set in context properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F1V8V10V6 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Negative parts need to be given due weight." Again, have you seen the "reception" section on Lewis Hamilton's Wikipedia page? If you're going to add the neutrality tag here, then you should do so in Hamilton's Wikipedia page too. I repeat, among all the praise, there's only ONE tiny sentence of critisism in Hamilton's Wikipedia page in the reception section. That's it.

Also, you need to elaborate. "Repetitious, barely contextualized quotes from different talking heads."

Repetition? Where?

Barely contextualized? Everything is "quoted" using the same exact words as cited, not made up. What context are you talking about? F1V8V10V6 (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the ONLY line of critisism from the reception section of Hamilton's Wikipedia page: "Hamilton's jet-set lifestyle and interests outside Formula One have been scrutinised."[152]

Everything else is praise.

No one has added a neutrality dispute tag there, despite it having the exact same issue you speak of — "To have these summarized by a very soft, two sentence paragraph at the end of the section, attributed to only one commentator, means that this section is entirely out of step with the way that Verstappen's driving is discussed in reliable sources." F1V8V10V6 (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the criticism mentioned at the end for Max isn't only by ONE commentator, it's by the entire SKY crew with MULTIPLE commentators, as it's mentioned. F1V8V10V6 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read Hamilton's article in ages. If you feel it also needs a POV tag then go ahead and add one. This discussion is about this article.

So far as the repetitious nature of the prose goes, take a look at the "raw speed" section. Here we have four different quotes that all can be summarised as "he's the quickest", with little to no other information. It is just saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. It's a similar situation with the other sections too.

In addition, one of the reasons that this repetition gets tedious to read is that a lot of times there is very little explanation beyond just the raw quote. This is what I mean by context. How does it help a reader understand more about what makes Verstappen's driving extraordinary if all we are giving them is a bald quote that some talking head has given. Palmer's contributions are particularly egregious.

It would be better to have more condensed and reasoned discussion here, similar to the sort of detail that has been included from Scott Mitchell, that helps a reader set Verstappen's talent and impact in context. All we have at the moment are a lot of talking heads parroting "he's great, he's great". Ideally, this would be blended with some balance on the positive and negative sides at each stage.

Pyrope 06:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So? Those experts DID say that. And that's why it's included. Not a problem at all.

That's why the articles are cited, so people can easily go and read it in DETAIL. Are you saying that the entire articles have to be quoted?

Hahaha, are you being serious? This is how it is written in Hamilton's reception section, yet you don't have a problem with that? If everyone's quote were to be explained like Mitchell's, then it will be WAY too long. Jesus.

It's hilarious how you don't see a problem with Hamilton's Wikipedia page (despite it being even worse in terms of the minuscule amount of critisism included),F1V8V10V6 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So Palmer's quote is the only one that needs more of an "explanation" F1V8V10V6 (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So, the only quotes I see that need an explanation are the ones from Palmer, Irvine and Windsor. If you look at the articles cited for the other quotes, that's all they said. Just a few quotes, that's it. F1V8V10V6 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Take a breath. Also, try to remember to assume good faith, eh? If Hamilton's page is as you describe it then it certainly needs a POV tag and a discussion started at that Talk page. However, it isn't on my watch list, unlike this page. I also don't give a rat's fuzzy little tush about how any particular driver performs or is talked about. The last time that was true John Herbert was driving for Lotus, and I was a lot younger. Pyrope 06:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"I also don't give a rat's fuzzy little tush about how any particular driver performs or is talked about." Yeah sure, is that why you came here and whined about the lack of critisism? Hahahaha.

"POV as to be laughable. Sure, Max has his fans, but there has also been a very significant and extensively argument in the media highlighting his negative traits and behaviours. To have these summarized by a very soft, two sentence paragraph at the end of the section, attributed to only one commentator, means that this section is entirely out of step with the way that Verstappen's driving is discussed in reliable sources"

I love how you're still dodging the fact that Hamilton's Wikipedia page is riddled with the exact problem you outlined here. You won't even go and check!— Preceding unsigned comment added by F1V8V10V6 (talk • contribs)

A few tips from the banner at the top of the page:

• Sign your posts
• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks

Most of this whole section is petty digs and personal attacks and is not helping the situation. I can't be bothered reading it all because there's so much petty squabbling. Stick to the facts and be constructive please. And @F1V8V10V6: please sign your posts. Your failure to do so makes it difficult to be sure who is saying what in places above. Mark83 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, criticism was added to the reception section in accordance with user Pyrope's request. If you look at the earlier revisions, there was barely any criticism (two short sentences). Therefore, the neutrality concern raised here has been solved.  F1V8V10V6!  14:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Great. Please sign your posts!! Mark83 (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

List of things that could be mentioned under the "sim racing" section.

The Race article would be a good basis, very interesting read. — title "SEARING PACE AND HARD WORK – VERSTAPPEN’S SIMRACING LIFE" (Can't post external links here). Google it.

Verstappen's mesmerising Bathurst pole lap (he was half a second faster than the world's fastest sim racing drivers) — YouTube video title "Max Verstappen - Insane Bathurst Pole Lap - Audi GT3" (333K views).

Verstappen outsmarting and outmaneuvering iRacing's highest rated driver Max Benecke — YouTube video title "Max Verstappen pulls of a 2000IQ move in IRacing" (1.8 million views)

Verstappen and Lando Norris' sim racing history over the years. They did a lot of sim racing together.

Verstappen talking about whether a sim racing driver could make it to F1 — YouTube video title "Can Sim Racing Make A Future F1 Champion?" (189K views).

Verstappen's sim racing setup/rig — Google

And more.  F1V8V10V6!  15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

His involvement with team redline and his most notable achievements with them would be a good start, I can see if I can dig up some good source on it. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Team Redline, definitely. Outside F1, Verstappen spends a lot of time racing for them.  F1V8V10V6!  17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Of those sources only The Race article and "Can Sim Racing Make A Future F1 Champion?" are acceptable per WP:SPS. Based on the sources currently listed in this thread, I can't see how his sim-racing warrants anything more than a sentence in "personal life". We need significantly more sources to warrant an entire section, and then we'd need some kind of justification for it not to be a sub-section under personal life. SSSB (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For the pole lap, here's The Race's article.

Also source by GPBlog

This one too About how Max dealt with his 51G shunt using the sim

F1 article

Max was voted the best Real Pro Sim Racer

The Race article, Verstappen is the real world pro with the highest iRating

I see many other sources for his other sim racing achievements, but some of them aren't reliable. Some of them are. I need to collect all the realiable ones. If a new section doesn't make sense, then could it be a sub section under "Public image and driver profile"?  F1V8V10V6!  10:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Due to all the things mentioned, I don't see why it can't just go into personal life which is where I initially put it. It would take a lot of work to find sources necessary to fully expand it as a standalone section. Because of due weight it also probably shouldn't be something massive, just a good mention since it is something he is quite involved in. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sub section under personal life would be better as suggested. Added sources above.  F1V8V10V6!  10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So what exactly would this sub section contain? --TylerBurden (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you look at Lando Norris' Wikipedia page under "Other ventures" you will see how short it is. It's the same for every F1 driver. Max's page doesn't need a new section though, a sub section under personal life would be perfect.

It would just contain a paragraph or two based on the sources above.  F1V8V10V6!  12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, now it would be great if someone could add it  F1V8V10V6!  06:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@F1V8V10V6: Your most recent edit made the Hamilton quote appear in bold text instead of with the quotation marks, did you mean to do that? --TylerBurden (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Main image

@F1V8V10V6: So first it's ″Let's just keep the original image, until a newer one is added to Commons″, even though me and another editor were clearly for the new added image and you were the only one who had a problem with it, and now you've changed it back to the weird picture where Verstappen has red eyes and is looking away from the camera. What's going on here? --TylerBurden (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark83's edit summary was different, he said "Max he looks different now." That was his reasoning. The funny thing is, the original image that was there was FROM 2017, this one is from fall 2018. Therefore, as per Mark83's edit summary, the original image was way too old anyway. So he didn't have a problem with the image from 2017 all this time???

Between us, you reverted my lead image change first (that was done by me), after the admin told us not to revert each other's edits. Then I reverted your change, once. That's even, and you started it, did you not?  F1V8V10V6!  15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the motivation for the change, which isn't really a helpful line of discussion here, I agree with you that the "red eyes" picture is inferior to the one that has been used on this page for some time. However, the newer "selfie" image also isn't suitable as an infobox image, being a badly framed, fairly poor quality shot that distorts his face. Wikipedia images will always be limited by what we have available, and while it would be lovely to have an up to date, clear, well lit, appropriately contextual, professional image for every article, this isn't possible. So, we have to judge what matters most for a lead image. Max hasn't changed that much in the last few years, and the status quo image still fulfills the major criteria of an infobox image: being clearly recognizable. MOS:LEADIMAGE also suggests that the lead should should be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works." The "selfie" image clearly isn't that. We have no requirement that the lead image be absolutely bang up to date, but it should help a reader by giving "visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." The status quo image does that job very well, and I don't think we should be in a huge rush to change it just because the subject has gained a couple of wrinkles. Pyrope 15:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, user Pyrope. I agree that selfies aren't right in the lead. Also, the original image is from 2017, and the one I added is from 2018. So as per Mark83's edit summary, the original one was even worse than the one I added (again, if we go by Mark83's reasoning).  F1V8V10V6!  15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the full history of the images, this being on my watchlist for less than a week. @Pyrope:, in my opinion you're being too literal with how high quality the image should be. It's my opinion that he looks so young in the 2018 image that it's not fully representative. But that's not a hill I want to die on.

@F1V8V10V6:, do not put quotes around something and then attribute it to me when it's not an accurate quote. I've tried to politely advise you on talk page guidelines, and I'm running out of assumptions of good faith that you are simply making mistakes. Read the talk page guidelines please.

And a general point, but "and you started it, did you not?" does not have any place in Wikipedia, nor adult life in fact. Mark83 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

F1V8, I'm not sure you even understand how reverting works, me changing the image isn't me reverting you. Either way that's not the discussion here, I can understand not wanting to use the selfie one, even though in my book it's a good clear image. But why use the weird red eye one? Espescially when you (F1V8) said let's just stick with the original? --TylerBurden (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So we have a selfie, the image from 2018, the image from 2017, and the newer one. The selfie in my opinion doesn't belong in the lead at all, because it's a selfie and the angle is all wrong. The image from 2018 is newer than the original one from 2017, and based on Mark83's edit summary: "Replacing newer image. He looks different now. This one is more representative", the 2018 one is better for the lead than the image from 2017.  F1V8V10V6!  16:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, I can see how you were thinking now at least. But I don't think that because Mark made that (similar) edit summary that should be the only thing we go of off. It's not a great photo because he is looking away from the camera and got the aforementioned red eyes from the camera. It's not like he looks different in the 2018 and 2017 to the point it's worth using a worse image. I say the long standing image should be used rather than red eye Max, or the selfie. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The "red eyes" aren't even visible unless you click on the image. And what are the Wikipedia rules that say anything against "red eyes" when it comes to lead images?  F1V8V10V6!  16:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about rules other than yourself? We're trying to build a consensus here so can we not just have a discussion about the images themselves without resorting to some rule fixation? When was the new image added by the way? --TylerBurden (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying Mark83, and I completely acknowledge that as we don't have a perfect image there will necessarily be a good degree of personal opinion involved, on all sides, in the decision. However, the "selfie" image is let down on a good many technical faults, the two most important of which are the distortion (caused by it being a close-up shot taken with a wide angle lens) and the poor framing (jammed up in the top corner, with the top of his head and his hat brim both cropped out) of his face. He certainly does look younger in the status quo image, but I think this is a relatively minor point when set aside the factors I've just mentioned. Note I have no issue with selfies in general, provided they actually fulfil the requirements of a lead image (which are different to those in body text) and work in service of both the reader experience and the credibility of the encyclopedia. Pyrope 16:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so would you prefer the one where he has red eyes and is looking away? Or the longstanding one? --TylerBurden (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That isn't clear already?! :-D I find the "red eye" image problematic for a few reasons, although the redeye is not really among them, ironically (in thumbnail it isn't hugely noticeable, and it could be easily fixed if we decided we liked it enough to use). Firstly, the pose and the look on his face are both suboptimal, with him looking very strongly off to the side, and sporting a slouch and pout somewhat like a stroppy teenager who has just been told to clean up his room or there'll be no PlayStation tonight. Also, I find the busy background to be quite distracting, although the cropped version has alleviated this a little bit. Pyrope 16:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. What do you mean by, "in thumbnail"? Also, which cropped version?  F1V8V10V6!  16:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So the consensus so far seems to be going back to the longstanding image, and I agree. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

F1V8V10V6, "thumbnail" refers to an image presented on a Wikipedia page with reduced size and resolution compared to the original, whether by using formatting controlled by the "thumb" parameter in image tags, through the InfoboxImage module that is implemented in most infobox templates, or some other means. In general, just a small preview image rather than the full resolution original. In referencing the cropping I was thinking mostly about the version used here compared to the original from which it was derived. In other words, it could have been worse. Pyrope 17:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

By "longstanding" do we mean File:Max Verstappen 2017 Malaysia 3.jpg? I'd support that. Mark83 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yea that's the one, it has been in use on this article for quite a while now. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the one I'm thinking of, yes. It has been the lead image for this page since November 2017, so certainly could be usurped if the right image comes along, but I think for now it is our best option. Pyrope 17:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

With uncropped red eyes some people would be going around with the thought that Verstappen has a great mustache, that's about the only + I could see with that. Agreed it should remain as is, maybe some better photos can be obtained this season. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Driver photos are always so hard to get. I've uploaded dozens of car photos to Commons, but the driver autograph and meet-and-greet sessions are usually either very costly (so I don't go) or a complete zoo where only the very most determined get close enough for a good shot (so I don't go). I'm always surprised that the teams themselves don't send out a couple of CC or copyleft images each year. You'd think that they would prefer a site like Wikipedia (and the huge number of fan blogs out there) to use a high quality image that shows their driver and their sponsors' logos to best effect. Ah well. Pyrope 17:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yea shame about the cost for those things, will be attending Race Of Champions as it is within relatively easy traveling distance for me this year and thought it might be a good chance to get some shots of the attending F1 drivers, that is until I saw the price for getting up close with them. At least the current image is quite good (if a bit outdated). --TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"do not put quotes around something and then attribute it to me when it's not an accurate quote."

Part of your edit summary was: "He looks different now".

I said that your edit summary was: "Max looks different now".

My comment did not change the meaning of your quote.  F1V8V10V6!  16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a disregard for accuracy which I find troubling. If you are quoting me, quote me. Don't change my words. Mark83 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

About the description under "Wheel-to-wheel racing" being trimmed down

What's the reason for trimming it down, Mark83? Thanks.  F1V8V10V6!  18:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of that section was written by Martin Brundle, not Wikipedia editors. Quotes are useful, but shouldn't be overused. I believe this is overuse. I therefore trimmed what I could without losing his important points. I still think there is too big a quote left. Happy to discuss. Mark83 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Brundle is a purist. His critique is of the highest order (along with Peter Windsor). That is why I added the entire quote. That being said, I do agree with it being trimmed. Quick question: When did you first edit this page?  F1V8V10V6!  19:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh Brundle as a source is excellent. He’s knowledgable, direct and very fair IMO. Just think we’re leaning too much on a verbatim quote.

Can you explain why you’re asking that last question? Mark83 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GA nominee

I added this article to the list of GA nominations. I thought someone might've already done that, but it hasn't been nominated before. The only other F1 related article that's been nominated recently is McLaren MCL35.  F1V8V10V6!  11:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What other articles have/haven't been nominated isn't relevant, it's about whether the article meets the GA criteria. If it doesn't, a huge amount of time and effort can be required by both the reviewer and nominator. (An aside but Mark Webber (racing driver) is a very recent nomination). Mark83 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"What other articles have/haven't been nominated isn't relevant" I didn't say that it's relevant.

"If it doesn't, a huge amount of time and effort can be required by both the reviewer and nominator." Yes, that depends on what the reviewer says. It will only require a huge amount of time if there are serious issues with the article.

I didn't know that [2] was nominated recently.  F1V8V10V6!  14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, by mentioning it, you implied that you considered it relevant. SSSB (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning as part of "GA nominee" suggests you thought there was relevance, no? I suppose I was just looking for reassurance that you have vetted the article against GA criteria before other editor(s) invest a load of time in a review?

I can't review it as I've edited it, but I would suggest a thorough review of prose and sources/source formatting. A few examples:

• Team Redline; a hugely successful - see WP:WTW and one of the sources is from Verstappen's own website (indirectly).
• "flew nose-first" - not sure that's appropriate?
• although Verstappen hit back at Massa by pointing out Massa had himself been involved in a similar incident with Sergio Pérez at the 2014 Canadian Grand Prix.[59] not sure we should indluge whatabout-ism?
• "Verstappen's boss, Horner" is redundant.
• and that "Verstappen will learn from Belgium". - Horner didn't say this. That's what the headline said. But we shouldn't present it as a quote from Horner.
• he barely managed to avoid hitting the guardrail when he spun on the main straight. guardrail?
• He received considerable praise for his performance, with his team principal Christian Horner labelling it "one of the best drives" in Formula One history - unbiased assessment? Did anyone else say it?
• Verstappen enjoyed a tremendous surge of success. WP:WTW, NPOV?
• He won his third Formula One race (and second in 2017) at the Mexican Grand Prix the bracketed text is redundant
• He won the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix at Silverstone, having started from fourth. Red Bull Racing Team Principal, Christian Horner, described it as "an amazing performance" by Verstappen and the Red Bull support team. again, unbiased assessment? Did anyone else say it?
• During Free Practice for the Portuguese Grand Prix, Verstappen was subject to controversy - subject to controversy makes it sound like he was a victim does it not?
• Verstappen also became the first driver to sweep a triple-header sounds at home in a news article, not an encyclopedia
• Verstappen topped the annual Formula 1 team principals’ top ten drivers ranking in 2021 "topped" sounds at home in a news article, not an encyclopedia
• before a second podium came sounds at home in a news article, not an encyclopedia
• Why single out only some commentators' nationality?
• In the official F1 column, Palmer wrote why does it matter it was in a column, just stick with Palmer? His stature speaks for itself?
• Checking first instances are linked. e.g. sim racing not linked at first mention.
• Check for overlinking - link first and link once. e.g. Hamilton, Red Bull overlinked.
• In 2021, repeated references to "title rival" Hamilton. The reader gets it.
• Verstappen looked set to claim 2nd after floor problems will the average reader have a clue what floor problems are?

Mark83 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Criteria 5 a problem also ;) Mark83 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mentioning as part of "GA nominee" suggests you thought there was relevance, no? I suppose I was just looking for reassurance that you have vetted the article against GA criteria"

Not really, what matters is that I didn't mean to imply that there was relevance.

I did look at the GA criteria, (immediate failures & the six criteria), and superficially this article looked fine.

Is Criteria 5 a problem? I don't see an edit war or a content dispute?? If you're referring to my revert regarding the subsection "Florida Winter Series" then that's not an issue because I didn't revert it again.

That's a good list of issues with the article in my opinion.

 F1V8V10V6!  15:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I've completed a few GA reviews, and if I knew the nominator "superficially" checked the article against the criteria it wouldn't thrill me. But let's see what the reviewer says. The stability comment was tongue-in-cheek, sorry. There has been edit warring, but this is not "ongoing". Mark83 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Superficially" Well, I read the criteria, and then I read the entire article, but nothing stood out to me...that's what I meant. "But let's see what the reviewer says." Who is the reviewer? "The stability comment was tongue-in-cheek, sorry." Sorry for what? 😄  F1V8V10V6!  17:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit: It says: "Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it"

What, so the article only needs ONE reviewer? That's it? A reviewer who hasn't done significant edits, or no edits to the article?  F1V8V10V6!  17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s the process, yes. You really shouldn’t be voicing surprise - you should read the GA process fully before nominating. Having said that this is not a bad article. I think it needs work but it’s not a quick fail either. Mark83 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I was surprised because that process looked weird to me. "I think it needs work", well, for now, I'll try to fix those issues you listed.  F1V8V10V6!  18:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

One general tip - consider WP:TONE. I realise you didn’t write the whole article, but when checking it look for things that don’t have a formal, encyclopedic tone. Some of this article reads like it’s written for a F1 news site. (Again, not a dig at you, but mentioning since you’re going to be working on the GA nomination) Mark83 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Some of this article reads like it’s written for a F1 news site. Again, not a dig at you"

Such as? Are you referring to your list above, or do you see other "F1 news site" sentences? I didn't write anything apart from "Public image and profile." I did minor edits to the other sections though (spacing, spelling, citations, and a couple of sentences).  F1V8V10V6!  18:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes there’s a lot. The list isn’t exhaustive. Mark83 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"A lot" how many? Could you list them, or just tell me exactly where? I'd like to know that before I try to edit.  F1V8V10V6!  18:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not conducting the review. My priority is older articles in the backlog reduction drive. I’ve a live review ongoing already. Mark83 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm... So by "Some of this article reads like it’s written for a F1 news site" you mean words like "nose-first", "topped", or other "F1 words" like "guardrail", "Honda-powered driver", "two-stop", etc right?  F1V8V10V6!  19:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah just think ‘would I expect to read this an encyclopaedia or a formal, academic-type article.’ With a topic like this it’s easy to slip into informal prose when a lot of the sources are written that way. Mark83 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think this article is suitable for a GA at this time. The article deals with an active racing driver in the early phase of his career. Moreover, he is one of the most notable active drivers. The contents evolves quickly with every passing race, bringing significant changes to the prose. With each passing season it changes significantly. The article is even under semi-protection at this time because of the unconstructive editing it is often subjected to.Tvx1 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The article could be a Featured Article if it met the criteria. Same for GA. Mark83 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mark83; he is clearly a Wikipedia expert and knows more about rules/procedures than probably anyone else here  F1V8V10V6!  21:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

And therin lies the problem. It can’t meat the criteria. Not in a stable way anyway. Every month it has changed significantly and the new contented is not vetted to the criteria.Tvx1 21:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for the compliment. But not willing to claim that. Mark83 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I "fixed" those issues that you outlined. However, I do realise that there are other issues with the article. British and American spelling: words like "criticising" and "deputizing", that's an issue. Also, the words "Honda-powered driver" in the lead, what would you change that to? Also too many sections, like the ones under "Early career/formula racing."  F1V8V10V6!  14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@F1V8V10V6: the article contains the tag {{EngvarB}}, which should be followed. That suggests (to me) that "deputizing" needs to be changed to "deputising". I don't think there is anything wrong with the phrase "Honda-powered driver" itself (it's perfectly accurate), but I don't think the statement "including the first [win] for a Honda-powered driver since 2006." is a statement that belongs in the lead. It's not a major talking point of the article.

On the subject of too many sections. The number of sections isn't the issue, it's the length of the sections themselves. I don't think the Max Verstappen#Formula racing is big enough to justify sub-headings. The 2017 section is quite short, it could be merged with the section on 2016 (within Red Bull), and arguable you could the Toro Rosso section doesn't need sub-headings either. But that's up to you. Of course, if you expand those sections there would be better jutifications for more headers. I also want to stress that (as far as I aware) there are no guidelines on the size of sections/how many sections there should be - these are just my opinions. SSSB (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"I don't think the Max Verstappen#Formula racing is big enough to justify sub-headings. The 2017 section is quite short, it could be merged with the section on 2016 (within Red Bull), and arguable you could the Toro Rosso section doesn't need sub-headings either." Agreed

Karting section can be expanded, similar to other GA articles like "Michael Schumacher". And "racecraft", and "sim racing" and probably a subsection about endorsements, helmet design, the orange army, the Super Max song blowing up, all of that can be added, idk, new subsection maybe, under public image  F1V8V10V6!  12:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

On the introduction & the Honda-powered thing -- After winning the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, he became the first Dutch driver to win the Formula One World Championship, and the 34th Formula One World Drivers' Champion.[5] As of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, he has achieved 19 more victories...} This is confusing. We all know that's 20 wins (total), but someone unfamiliar with the subject could read this as 19 wins after the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.

Also, the fact that one of the wins the first for a Honda-powered driver since 2006. is in no way important enough for the lead of this article. It's a notable fact for a Honda article, and maybe for the Red Bull article, but in the context of Max Verstappen's career, this is trivial. (At least as far as the lead is concerned). Mention it in the main body if you want. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Mark83 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I was confused about that first bit too "19 more victories." Should be changed to "as of.....20 victories, 13 pole positions and a grand slam."

"Also, the fact that one of the wins the first for a Honda-powered driver since 2006. is in no way important enough for the lead of this article." Yeah, agreed, SSSB said that too, above.

I'll try to expand "Karting" for now, might add a new subsection under "Public image" about other stuff. Also "racecraft" could be expanded.  F1V8V10V6!  13:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Links alone are going to be an obstacle for this if it carries on the way it has, it may seem like a minor thing but these are the types of things that are taken into consideration to earn GA status. I've had several instances at this point where I've dealt with duplicates and then a day or two later the same article will be duplicate linked again. Take this Hamilton link I just removed for example, it was just put in randomly in the middle of a late section of the article. Even with the semi protection this article has quite the link issue. With the sheer amount of edits per day on this article it's hard to keep up, but I'll comb the article a bit to try and help with that aspect. (and for the love of Pete please check if things are already linked before adding new links, if it's relevant to Verstappen in some way it most likely is. Keep in mind also to ″move″ links if you're adding a new mention of something earlier on in the article that has a link further down). I also do agree with the point that many of the edits recently have used sensationalised wording and reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia (like the Redline bit being changed into ″hugely successful″ being one example when it was already fine before, although some of that seems to have been fixed. Would be fun to see the article reach GA status but there's work to do no doubt. --TylerBurden (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINKS are not an issue for a good article nomination. The criteria makes no mention of links at all. SSSB (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh could have sworn I have seen reviewers bring it up in their reviews before. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

They may have done, and they can bring it up as a general thing that needs to be worked on. Good article reviews can (and arguably should) mention areas for improvement not covered by the critiera, and this can include dealing with repeat links. But there is no basis for the presence of repeat links to cause an article to fail, or hold up an article's promotion. SSSB (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No it shouldn’t hold up a promotion. But GA review is about confirming article quality, so fixing other MOS issues seems sensible. Mark83 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Helmet design

F1V8V10V6, a few points on this new section:

• Saying his helmet "consisted of" a colour scheme is not gramatically correct. What the helmet consists of is various materials (of which I am not aware) that protects a driver's head. Then a colour scheme is applied on top.
• Your still getting caught out by auto-generated references. Please review before posting them.
• And it feels a bit like we're marketing products for Verstappen with the sourcing you've chosen. Mark83 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Thanks, Mark83. Oops, I meant to write "Verstappen's helmet design consisted of".

Thanks.Mark83 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

2) Yeah, looks like the sources cited are automatically redirected to the homepage of Verstappen.com (I will fix that now)

Please check them all. e.g. the F1 reference has trademark logos again. And there's another one with a bar which is the incorrect title.

Mark83 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I will check them all, and I'll remove the trademark logos.  F1V8V10V6!  21:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

3) Can you tell me what those sources are? I'll remove them.  F1V8V10V6!  21:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The modification was a tribute to Honda following the end of the Japanese manufacturer's three-year partnership with Red Bull Racing. In January 2022, Verstappen launched special merchandise, including helmets, to thank Honda. "The today launched 'Arigato Honda Collection' is a tribute to Honda for all they have meant to Max Verstappen and Red Bull Racing over the past three years. This collection is an 'Arigato' or 'thank you' to Honda for the tremendous work ethic and dedication they have shown," said Verstappen's team in an official press release. is all a bit fansite-ey? And the reference is Verstappen's own website. I 100% know your intention is to provide info and a reference, but it just feels a bit like were flogging his merchandise. Mark83 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There's another source that isn't Verstappen's own website, should I cite that, or remove the "Verstappen team" statement completely?  F1V8V10V6!  21:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to add information about his helmet design to the article, but an entire new section? We already have a ″public image and profile″ section, and his helmet design is part of his public image. Surely a sub-section there would make more sense? --TylerBurden (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

See "Michael Schumacher", that's a GA article. And GA articles can be used as examples when working on other articles right?  F1V8V10V6!  21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark83 didn't say that, did he? There are no Wikipedia rules that anything about Helmet designs and new sections. Also, "not a bad idea" Go and check literally any other article about a popular F1 driver, they all have sections about helmet designs.  F1V8V10V6!  21:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Calm down, he didn't say it, I'm saying it. And sure Michael Schumacher's article has it, but that article doesn't have a section about his public image. No idea what you mean with the tirade about ″not a bad idea″, that was literally me agreeing with the inclusion. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound like that. My bad  F1V8V10V6!  21:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, since this article has the public image section, I think it's more sensible to include it as a sub-section there instead of a standalone section. But others can weigh in their opinions on this as well. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding quote boxes

So, quote boxes shouldn't be used at all?

Mark83, per WP:LONGQUOTE “Quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw attention to the opinion of one source as though Wikipedia endorses it, which may violate the neutral point of view policy."

So for example, regarding other "GA" articles, this entire subsection is completely incorrect then, regarding the use of quote boxes. Even other GA articles like "Michael Schumacher" have many quote boxes. Do you agree? If so, how did these articles get "GA" status? I'm just curious

There's only one quote box in this article.  F1V8V10V6!  14:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, an important clarification - Wikipedia:Quotations of which WP:LONGQUOTE is an essay, not a policy. However the point is a fair one - quotes like this can be given undue weight. The Lewis Hamilton or Michael Schumacher point is irrelevant here, we're discussing this article. But if you're asking for my opinion, there is overuse of quote boxes in the former too. But please don't go off on a quotebox removal crusade - they are their own articles and you'll have to gain conensus for that. Perhaps WP:BRD? Mark83 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the use of quoteboxes in Lewis Hamilton is excessive. But more importantly, those are quotations that don't work well in a paragrapgh (as they are long). Lauda's quote ("I have no answer except to take my cap off. What we are seeing is a talent of the century.") doesn't need to be in a quotebox, becuase the only important part ("talent of the century") works best in prose, rather than in a quotebox, which should be avoided if possible. SSSB (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"But more importantly, those are quotations that don't work well in a paragrapgh (as they are long)."

Well Ross Brawn's quote was long too, but it was removed (by another user), and the Alonso quote box in "Lewis Hamilton" isn't a long quote, so that would work well in a paragraph. Anyway, if it's just about how long the quote is, then I'll just add a quote box with a longer quote here.  F1V8V10V6!  17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The current consensus here is against quote boxes. So pending any further opinions, let's leave them out of this article. Mark83 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not just about how long the quote is. The contents, it's length, it's neutrality, how it affects the neutrality of the article/section, who said the quote, its significance, its context - these are all things to consider when inserting quotes (whether in prose or quotebox). Its not as simple as "this is a long quote". SSSB (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark83 Since this article has one quote box (in another section), I think just one more would be fine. If I find another quote that works well in a quote box (there are many, but I'd have to choose the best one), I'll start a new talk page discussion so editors can discuss whether a quote box could be added for that quote.  F1V8V10V6!  18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You're not getting the answer you want and just ignoring it. That's not how consensus works. Now if 2 more people jump in agree with you then that will be the new consensus. For now let's maintain the status quo. Mark83 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I said above. If I find the right quote, I won't add it to the article, I'll just start a new discussion (about that quote) so editors can discuss whether a quotebox could be added.  F1V8V10V6!  19:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Going out and looking for a quote just because you want to include a quotebox is really not how this should work. It does suggest that you are just trying to make this page look fancy rather than serving our readers with a factual, unbiased and informative article. Pyrope 19:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Going out and looking for a quote just because you want to include a quotebox is really not how this should work." I didn't say that, that's an assumption. I don't have to look for quotes, there are many. That's why I said: "If I find the right quote, I won't add it to the article, I'll just start a new discussion (about that quote) so editors can discuss whether a quotebox could be added." You could say that about literally every quote box in every article then — in order to add a quote box, the editor must go out and look for one lol.....you have to find a quote to add a quotebox.....or do you prefer empty quoteboxes?  F1V8V10V6!  19:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No, if when researching a topic you find a good quote, and think it is worth including to benefit the readers, you then stop and think about how best to include it. If you decide that's a quote box you add it as you see fit. If others disagree you will be reverted, then you start the discussion. That's the BRD process and it works well usually. It is very rare that a quotebox is the right solution to including a quote, because of all the undue prominence and lack of context issues that have been discussed above. Noting that one more quotebox "would be fine", is misunderstanding what this whole discussion is about. We aren't looking at quotas of quoteboxes, we are looking at making a good encyclopedia. Pyrope 19:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"if when researching a topic you find a good quote, and think it is worth including to benefit the readers, you then stop and think about how best to include it. If you decide that's a quote box you add it as you see fit. If others disagree you will be reverted, then you start the discussion." That's what I did....😉  F1V8V10V6!  19:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fan support section

There was a source I found a while ago (before this section existed) that was quite good, I believe it described the Dutch Grand Prix and went into some detail on the Verstappen fans in attendance describing the sheer numbers and party atmosphere etc. I tried to find it again when creating the subsection but was unable to do so, all I can remember is what I mentioned above as well as that it was quite a major site/newspaper. But finding it or something like it could help us expand the section. I am also thinking it might be good to replace ″Verstappen speaking at a pre-race show at the 2017 United States Grand Prix″ image with one of the images of the Verstappen grandstands that exist on commons. An image of Verstappen holding a microphone doesn't convey as much to the reader as seeing the grandstands in action in my view. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That image has to be replaced with the one you mentioned. So yeah, go ahead.

Also, the Sky Sports article about Max being voted "the most popular driver" could be added.

If you can find that source, then that would be great.  F1V8V10V6!  01:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely related, but I think Yamamoto's thoughts about Verstappen's fans is notable enough to be included in this article. What do you think? Klrfl (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@F1V8V10V6 and Klrfl: Thanks, those are both good suggestions. I'll get around to making these edits eventually unless either of you (or someone else) gets around to it first. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Contract extension

So I just checked out Max Verstappen's official YT Channel, and there is a video announcing a contract extension with Red Bull. There are also many articles talking about it. Should be included in this article, no?

Here are a few articles talking about said extension:

• F1 official site
• Eurosport
• The Guardian

I can't edit the page since I am not extended confirmed. Klrfl Talk! 13:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

|- ! 2022 |align=left|Formula One |align=left| Oracle Red Bull Racing | | | | | | | Izzlex94 verstappenchamp (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. This is not how you make an edit request (you need to mention where you want it added, and why, and your signature goes at the end (I moved it to the end for you)). But I know what you mean, and am implementing it. SSSB (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)