Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of red-flagged Formula One races/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 9 November 2012 [1].

List of red-flagged Formula One races edit

List of red-flagged Formula One races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after some recent work I believe the list meets the criteria. All comments to be dealt with expediently, cheers NapHit (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "A man in a white overall leaning standing" I don't understand that
fixed. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ten-minute" not sure a hyphen is necessary
the f1 site uses a hyphen, so I'm going to stick with it for time being NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If a race is unable to be resumed then", add a comma after resumed
done NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That said, I see some instances of the curly being used in the list.
done NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half-points are awarded" again, not sure a hyphen is correct
done NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Formula One World Championship races that have been red-flagged" can you add a "list of" at the first part of that table caption
there is no requirement to add this, its obivous its a list. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you should, well, as questions, like "Was the race restarted?" could perhaps be changed to "This parameter indicates whether the race was restated.", or something
Nowhere is there "Was the race restarted?", there is a big difference between that and whether the race was restarted or not, one is a question one is a statement. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tooltip for the "R" column heading used to say "Was the race restarted?". I have changed it to "Race restarted". DH85868993 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than saying "Y" or "N", could you write out fully, as "Yes" and "No", or clarify?
It is clarified in the key, its clear what they refer to. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some parts of the list (like the lede), you write "per cent" with a space, in others you don't, you write as "percent". Please be consistent.
done NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Broadcasting Corporation" should be just simply "BBC", as per MOS:ACRO exceptions
nowhere does it state in that link that British Broadcasting Corporation should be BBC per an exception. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any further categories?
Nope I think the current category is the most appropriate and there aren't others to include as far as I'm aware. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 23:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 21:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—
  • If a race is unable to be resumed then “the results will be taken at the end of the penultimate lap before the lap during which the signal to suspend the race was given.” Why is this in quote?
because that it is exactly what the source says. therefore it needs to be in quotation marks. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26 of the races were stopped on the first lap, all of which were subsequently restarted. Three of the races were stopped...... Sentences starts with similar words.
changed the to these, but not sure is any other way to word that sentence. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • when his car collided with the the back of Didier Pironi's Ferrari.
done NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the sentences in the table have a fullstop at their end while others not. What is the reason for that?
the ones that don't have a full stop are not complete sentences. Therefore, they don't need full stops. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand, like for example rows (1989 Mexican Grand Prix and 1989 French Grand Prix) have similar sentences. The 1st has a fullstop at the end while the later not. Zia Khan 20:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes those should have periods, added them now. NapHit (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile in the references. Same for the other cites.
There is no requirement for there to be links in references. As I'm aware its based on personal preference. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would use publisher parameter for BBC Sports.
Again, I don't think this is an issue. Technically the publisher is the BBC not BBC Sport so this way is correct I believe. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Khan 23:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 21:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • "there is also a display in the driver's cockpit which alerts them to the accident" when was this introduced? Also, I would like the table to include the total number of laps of the GP asides from the lap when it was stopped (at least for the GPs that were not restarted). Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more details on the display in the cockpit, but i've not added the total number of laps as I don't think its necessary. The primary information that we need is when the accident occurred not how many laps there were in total, this is too much info per WP:NOTSTATS. Clicking on the link for the races suffices. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 12:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*"two annual Championships" – Capitalization necessary?
I was unsure about this, but everywhere else I look I see it capitalised, so I'm hesitant to de-capitalise at the moment. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it should not be capitalized. As far as I can tell, it's not a proper noun. I just don't see any reason for it to be capitalized.
done NapHit (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one for drivers and one for constructors" – WP:EASTEREGG links. Perhaps link like this: "one for drivers and one for constructors"?
done NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make it "in 2007. It involves".
done NapHit (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a display of flag signals in the driver's cockpit to which alerts them to the accident"
done NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pit exit is closed" – Wikilink?
there is only a wikilink for pit stop to have wikilinked that on first usage. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before it returns to the pit lane" – Wikilink?
done per the above NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
have now linked first World Championship Grand Prix (piped from your suggestion) and removed the 1950 link. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still WP:EASTEREGGy. In fact I'm questioning the point of the "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix at Silverstone in 1950" bit. Wouldn't an "As of something" bit be more useful, telling the reader how up to date the numbers are?
I've removed the Easter egg link and changed the structure of that sentence retaining the start. I prefer using since, as it provides the reader with some context regarding Formula One and how often a red-fla has been shown during that time. NapHit (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Although it still bugs me that so much emphasis is placed on that first grand prix. How about "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, a red flag has been shown..."?
done NapHit (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to incidents that resulted in fatalities" – Another WP:EASTEREGG. Perhaps link like this: "due to incidents that resulted in fatalities"?
done NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Race stopped due to rain" – Complete sentences require periods.
done NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Half points were awarded.[A] – In the spirit of WP:REPEATLINK, place that footnote on each occurrence.
done NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accident involving Niki Lauda" – WP:REPEATLINK. Multiple occurrences.
there is no link to Niki Lauda n that particular sentence, but I assume you're referring to the link in the winner's column as well. Repeatlinking in tables is permitted if the table is sortable, primarily because when the table is sorted the links are not in their original position, therefore it saves the reader scrolling around for one link. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning exactly, which is why I'm asking for more links, not fewer.
I see, this issue should be fixed now. NapHit (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The (partially inconsistent) shortening of the sentences in the "Incident" column strikes me as awkward and unnecessary.
had a go at fixing these, hopefully these less awkwardly. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know what to make of sentences like these: "Stopped due to an accident involving nine cars, race was restarted over the original distance." There's enough space in the table to write "The race was stopped due to an accident involving nine cars. It was restarted over the original distance." In this expanded form, the comma splice becomes apparent, and I find myself raising an eyebrow to "restarting over the original distance". It's easy enough to figure out what is meant, but I wonder if not boring our readers with repetitive language warrants subjecting them to this. Now I'm far from a great copy-editor, but I'd feel much better about this if someone who is one told me it was fine.
I've expanded the sentences and they should read a lot better now. NapHit (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was restarted over the original distance." – Weird wording. I'd say the race was resumed in cases of reduced distance.
I'm against using resumed as it implies the race carried on from similar circumstances to before the incident, when that is not the case. When a race is red-flagged, it is restarted in the same fashion as at the start. It is also officially referred to as a restart, so I'm against changing that. NapHit (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The race [insert was here?] stopped" – Multiple occurrences.
  • "due to rain, it was restarted over the original distance." Comma splice. Multiple occurrences.
  • "The race was stopped on [insert the here?] first lap"
  • "The race was restarted on the aggregate timing of the first 30 laps and subsequent 33." – I don't understand. Multiple occurrences.
  • "An Accident involving a number of cars" – Not a proper noun.
  • "due to the Fatal accident of Ayrton Senna" – Not a proper noun.
  • "Michael Schumacher subsequently crashed after the red flag was shown."
Ok, think i've fixed/clarified all these. NapHit (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll examine the references later. Looking forward to support this nomination. Goodraise 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I have addressed each one. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited. Goodraise 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very close to supporting. There's just a few nits left for me to pick with the references. They all seem reliable, but the citation format is a wee bit unusual. Last time I read it top to bottom, WP:CITE basically said "meh, do whatever you like". Still, consistency would be nice.

  • Refs. 6, 12, 16, 17 and 20: ESPN or ESPNF1? Make up your mind.
fixed NapHit (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving "ESPNF1 staff" as author would appear rather pointless. I don't mind it being there, I'm just asking myself why bother pointing out that no authors have been named?
removed NapHit (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using {{cite web}}'s |publisher= field for website names (off topic: is there a good translation for the German word zweckentfremden?) is one thing, as it's done far and wide. However, using its |work= field (according to the template documentation intended for website names) for website sections is pushing it. I'm not going to oppose over this, but I had to mention it at least.
I assume you're referring to the BBC sport references, I was not aware this was an issue, its actually widely done on references from this site, see here. I can change to just BBC Sport as publisher if you like? That was the way i formatted it before I was told otherwise NapHit (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue. I just think it's unwise to use templates (which can change) in ways other than specified in their documentation. If you want to use this peculiar citation style, that's fine with me (as long as nothing is added to WP:CITE which would forbid it). However, it might be worth considering to format those citations manually, rather than abusing citation templates.
  • And one more thing: The references in this article are all placed in footnotes, which is why I'd rename the "Footnotes" section to simply "Notes". By the way, you can nest cite.php footnotes using {{#tag:ref}}. Here is an example.

Hopefully, that'll be it from me. Goodraise 23:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed footnotes to notes. NapHit (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited. Goodraise 23:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more, sorry.

  • Multiple times the article says something to the effect of "an accident stopped the race". Should I take that to mean "the race was stopped due to an accident" or did these accidents literally stop those races?
changed them to the race was stopped due to an accident. NapHit (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was restarted for a further 22 laps, and the time was combined with the first 58 laps." – I can guess what is meant here, but I don't like to guess. Each driver's times from the two partial races are summed up as his total time, right? Multiple occurrences.
I've clarified that this decided the race. It is hard trying to explain this term, but yes, the times from the two parts of the race are added to together to create an aggregate time. NapHit (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are striving to meet professional standards of writing here. In light of that, I don't think the wording is clear enough yet.
  • "The race was stopped due to a fatal accident involving Riccardo Paletti." – I wonder who died in that accident. Is it known?
Paletti died, changed it to make this clear. NapHit (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laps, and the time was combined" and "laps and the time was combined" – Consistency please.
done NapHit (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The race was stopped due to the fatal accident of Ayrton Senna." – Another easter egg link. How about "The race was stopped due to the fatal accident of Ayrton Senna"?
done NapHit (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The race was stopped due to the accidents of Mark Webber and Fernando Alonso." – Multiple occurrences.
done NapHit (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited. Goodraise 15:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited. Goodraise 21:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After all those changes to the "Incidents" column, I've got more:

  • More than half of the races were "restarted over the original distance." How about not boring our readers with so much repetitive language and instead make use of the table format. For instance, the "R" column could distinguish between three cases, rather than two: "the race was not restarted", "the race was restarted over reduced distance" and "the race was completely restarted".
Done NapHit (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • About a third of the races were stopped at least in part due to rain. How about using the table format to reduce some of the repetitive language? Having a dedicated column for whether rain contributed to the interruption of the race might be beneficial to our readers.
This is a good idea, but I do see a problem. Races win which rain was the only factor that stopped the race would leave the incident column blank. If that's not an issue then I'll happily add the column. NapHit (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All entries in the "Incidents" column currently start with "The race was stopped". Changing the column header could reduce the need for so much repetition. For instance, making the column header say "Red-flag prompting incident" would allow for that column's field in the 1990 Portuguese Grand Prix's line to say just: "An accident involving Aguri Suzuki and Alex Caffi".
done NapHit (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me use this opportunity to thank you for your swift reactions and especially for putting up with what must seem like never-ending pedantry. Goodraise 21:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I have to say, the thoroughness of your review is refreshing. NapHit (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited. Goodraise 02:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nine of these were stopped due to rain" – I'm counting more than nine. Am I missing something?
This is in relation to the previous sentence which mentions how many races were not restarted, of which there were nine. NapHit (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still somewhat dissatisfied with that paragraph for various reasons, e.g. it is too verbose and unnecessarily complex in structure, even misleading. How about "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have been shown in sixty-three races. Twenty-six were restarted on the first lap. Thirteen races, nine stopped because of rain and four due to accidents involving drivers, were not restarted. Three races were stopped due to incidents that resulted in fatalities: The 1975 Spanish Grand Prix was stopped on lap twenty-nine and not restarted after Rolf Stommelen's car crashed into a spectator area, killing five people. The 1982 Canadian Grand Prix was halted on the first lap after Riccardo Paletti was killed when his car collided with the back of Didier Pironi's Ferrari. The 1994 San Marino Grand Prix was red-flagged on lap five following the fatal accident of Ayrton Senna, in which his car crashed into a wall at the Tamburello curve."?
changed it to what you suggested. NapHit (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all of which were subsequently restarted."
  • Racing flags – Already linked in the lead.
removed NapHit (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following the fatal accident of Ayrton Senna" – Easter egg link I should have noticed earlier.
done NapHit (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three of these races were stopped due to incidents that resulted in fatalities." – I'd use a colon.
done NapHit (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really thought I'd've capped and supported by now, but every time I go over the article I find something new. Goodraise 02:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A ten-minute warning is given before the race is resumed behind the safety car, which leads the field for a lap before it returns to the pit lane." – I wonder, if the safety car is involved in all restarts, why mention it specifically in some of the list entries?

Revisited. Goodraise 11:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a rule change that occurred around in 2005, so all races that have been red-flagged since then have been restarted behind the safety car. Can add this, but not sure about the best way to mention it. NapHit (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help, but it's rather difficult without knowing what exactly your source says. Goodraise 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its the sporting regulations for the 2005 season, so it mentions the procedure in similar vein to the lead. NapHit (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without access to the source (or a quotation), I can't help you much. If a safety car hasn't always been used, the reader might like to know when this procedure was introduced and what was done before. Goodraise 12:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit about it now. NapHit (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't understand why this (safety car related) stuff is relevant in the first place. I'm not a racing fan, so I'm probably missing something, but it doesn't seem all that important to me (within the context of this article) how the restarts were carried out. If you think that kind of information is important, by all means include it, but keep it balanced and consistent. How things are handled today should not be given more attention than how they were handled 20 years ago, or 20 years before that. (See WP:RECENTISM.) Along the same line, I don't understand why the article mentions who restarted behind the safety car, but not who restarted from pole position before 2005. Goodraise 17:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it was mentioned in the first place is because that is the current procedure. I'm aware of recentism, but I don't feel its necessary to go into detail about every change to restart procedures here. I think its important to provide the reader information on how the race is restarted given the nature of the article, so I'm going to mention the changes made because as far as I'm aware that is the only major change in the restart procedure. I'll remove who started behind the safety car since 2005 as well for consistency. NapHit (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten increasingly busy since I started reviewing this nomination. I need to get this off my plate, so I'll just say: Support, good enough. Goodraise 12:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
  • The second "Lap" in the key is not a proper noun so should not be capitalized.
done NapHit (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It strikes me as odd that there is one red flag in 1950 and then none for twenty years. Is there any reason for this, or is it purely coincidental?
I think this is purely coincidental, safety measures were virtually non-existent from 1950 to the early 70s, even if there were major incidents such as at the 1961 Italian Grand Prix, where 15 spectators where killed and yet the race continued. It appears stewards were less inclined to stop races than they are today. NapHit (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a number of races have been stalled by rain. Perhaps you could expend a sentence or two explaining the rain conditions which warrant a red flag. Although I am not an avid F1 follower, it strikes me they usually race rain or shine.
If the races have been stopped by rain, then its because the conditions were treacherous, leading to poor visibility and aquaplaning. Unfortunately, race reports are at a premium so I can't expand the descriptions as this would constitute original research. Where they are available I've tried to describe the incident as much as possible. NapHit (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise in excellent condition. Arsenikk (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, they've all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I would add photos, but there is nowhere to put them unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Don't think the hyphen is needed in "Following a red flag being shown".
  • 1975 Spanish Grand Prix: "an" is needed before "accident".
  • 1982 Canadian Grand Prix: "the" needed before "original distance".
  • 2007 European Grand Prix: First word of "Safety car" shouldn't be capitalized. Same goes for each of the last four entries.
  • Ref 17 looks like it has a typo or two in the title. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Giants, they've all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there any particular reason why the letters in the key are bolded, but the ones in the table proper are not?—Midgrid(talk) 15:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its automatically bolded in the key for some reason, I guess to emphasise the symbol. As its already been emphasised and made clear what the symbols are in the key, it doesn't need to be bolded in the main table as well. NapHit (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are bolded because you used scope. You could get rid of it with plainrowheaders. To my knowledge, both is permissible per MOS. Goodraise 17:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, forgot about scope, I've added plainrowheaders now, so there is no bolding. NapHit (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I support this article for FL status.—Midgrid(talk) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_red-flagged_Formula_One_races/archive1&oldid=1138487263"