Misplaced Pages

Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:58, 13 October 2014 editPrisonermonkeys (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users35,281 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit Revision as of 21:33, 21 October 2014 edit undoPrisonermonkeys (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users35,281 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:
We have both main-body text and a footnote stating that Maldonado started 20th because Chilton's grid penalty was imposed later. However the qualifying results table we have gives Maldonado eventually starting 21st behind Chilton, as does the BBC website . - '''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em">]</span>''' '']'' 11:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC) We have both main-body text and a footnote stating that Maldonado started 20th because Chilton's grid penalty was imposed later. However the qualifying results table we have gives Maldonado eventually starting 21st behind Chilton, as does the BBC website . - '''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em">]</span>''' '']'' 11:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:It would appear Maldonado got a gearbox penalty as well. He qualified 20th, got demoted to 21st for the Suzuka carry-over, re-promoted to 20th with Chilton's penalty, and re-demoted with his own. ] (]) 07:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC) :It would appear Maldonado got a gearbox penalty as well. He qualified 20th, got demoted to 21st for the Suzuka carry-over, re-promoted to 20th with Chilton's penalty, and re-demoted with his own. ] (]) 07:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

==Attendance==
If you are going to include attendance figures, please make sure that the source is accurate. I have had to undo several edits because although the source given is reliable, it a) does not quote a specific figure, just "a capacity crowd"; and b) it discusses the attendance for the Saturday of the event, not the Sunday, which is when the race was held. The title of the article makes that pretty clear. So, {{replyto|Haken arizona}} please read the articles you intend to use as sources more carefully. We cannot use a source describing the events of Saturday to refer to the events of Sunday. ] (]) 21:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:33, 21 October 2014

WikiProject iconFormula One Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mikhail Kapirulin

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the picture of Ecclestone, Putin and Kapirulin is being used to highlight the relationship between the sport and the Kremlin in light of the controversy over Russia's actions in eastern Ukraine, and their alleged involvement in the shooting down of flight MH17. Although Kapirulin appears in the picture, he plays no role in the controversy. Ideally, the article would use a picture without him, but none are available. The reader does not need to know who Kapirulin is in order to understand the article, and indeed, including him in the caption is an unnecessary complication. But his presence should be explained, and so he has been included in a footnote. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The thing with the other guy in the foreground of photo is a reasonable questions to ask "Who is the other guy?" "Why government office-holder is on the background only?" "Who has signed document?" "What is the document?" As we can see on photo, that man signed agreements with Bernie, not background president. Mikhail Kapirulin is the head of the company that is building the F1 race track in Sochi. And no reason to remove (from description) a person who signing the document on the photo. Footnotes alongside with reference link is bad choice for newbie readers, for example. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, that picture was not chosen because of Kapirulin. It was chosen to show something else, and he happened to be there. Describing him despite the way he has nothing to do with the issue the image is addressing is an added, unnecessary complication. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, you must say about all key people on the photo, not about two of three only. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The footnote does explain who he is. It just doesn't confuse or complicate things by inserting that explanation into the middle of a sentence that it's not related to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi in article lead

Please be aware that the article lead should be used only for key issues related to the race: the details of what, where and when; an historical context to the race; and a summary of the race itself. Bianchi's absence is a tragedy, but it does not affect the ability of the race to be run, and so it is not an appropriate inclusion in the article lead. Especially when all it is doing is simply creating a redundancy. Prisonermonkeys (talk)•

  • Bianchi crash has direct impact to Sochi race - only 21 car on the grid now. It's an info for article lead definitely. Another editor also pasted it before me. And I agree with him. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The article lead is the introduction - the who, what, where, when, how and why. It is not the article itself. Bianchi's absence does not affect the ability of the race to be run, or its outcome, which is the focus of the lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You are not right. Driver changes (briefly in lead) is very important information for stage. It's a first stage with 21 car only in the season. All drivers are with stikers about Bianchi, and you can say it's a not important info? 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not denying its importance. I just think that the current lead over-emphasises the issue. The article lead is the summary of the article. The details of the circumstances behind Bianchi's absence are too specific for the lead - they're better-suited to the body of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Bianchi is leadworthy, a short note at least. And body of the article must have detailed description of the situation with him. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
46, I'd appreciate it if you didn't copy and paste bits of my statements to use in your arguments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my English is very bad. And your cited statement is correct. But say about topic, not about editors here, please. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have seen what is currently there (00:34 UTC, 01:34 BST) and I believe it says all that is necessary, though it could do with a slight rewording. —GyaroMaguus00:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Grid placings re: Maldonado

We have both main-body text and a footnote stating that Maldonado started 20th because Chilton's grid penalty was imposed later. However the qualifying results table we have gives Maldonado eventually starting 21st behind Chilton, as does the BBC website here. - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It would appear Maldonado got a gearbox penalty as well. He qualified 20th, got demoted to 21st for the Suzuka carry-over, re-promoted to 20th with Chilton's penalty, and re-demoted with his own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Attendance

If you are going to include attendance figures, please make sure that the source is accurate. I have had to undo several edits because although the source given is reliable, it a) does not quote a specific figure, just "a capacity crowd"; and b) it discusses the attendance for the Saturday of the event, not the Sunday, which is when the race was held. The title of the article makes that pretty clear. So, @Haken arizona: please read the articles you intend to use as sources more carefully. We cannot use a source describing the events of Saturday to refer to the events of Sunday. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories: