![]() | 2016 Formula One World Championship has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 24, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Just a reminder that this article is listed at WP:ITN/R. However, it won't get posted whilst there is a maintenance tag on it. The referencing issues need addressing before it is removed. Mjroots ( talk) 17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion moved to
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Background_colours
|
---|
According to the FIA, drivers who fail to finish a race but complete at least 90% of race distance are classified. However, they are still considered DNFs. See the official classification for Austria 2016 as an example. http://www.fia.com/file/44607/download?token=Yp5eZzQ1 Because these drivers were non-finishers, they should be coloured the same as other DNFs. This is distinct from non-classified finishers. DrX au ( talk) 03:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is it confusing? The cars in question actually were retirements. For example Perez crashed out in Austria. The colour key says blue is for non-points finish or not-classified finish. Purple is for DNF / retirements. According to the FIA, 17th-20th places in Austria were DNFs. Therefore the blue background is incorrect. If other pages have incorrect entries, they can be fixed on a case-by-case basis. DrX au ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2016 Formula One season. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Harrias ( talk · contribs) 17:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up.
Harrias
talk
17:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the prose review completed. I still need to check on the references and images, and will hopefully get those finished soon. Harrias talk 11:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Harrias, Tvx1, where does this stand? The review has been open for over three months now, and Tvx1 hasn't made any edits to the article in over a month. Any chance of wrapping this up in the near future? BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this on. It looks like there was a fairly thorough review above, which seems to be all dealt with, so rather than go through the old review line by line I'll just read through again as if this were a brand-new review. I'll work on it this evening but it might not be done till tomorrow. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.
underwent changes regarding their power unit supply: a little stilted. How about "made changes to their power units", or "changed their power unit supplier"?
He joined the newly formed Haas F1 Team for 2016, where he was joined by: two consecutive "joined"s. Could the first be changed to "signed with"?
The race was originally scheduled to début in 2013, but has been delayed for four consecutive years: no longer the right tense, since it's not 2016 anymore. If it eventually happened, make it "was delayed until 201x"; if not, "but has been delayed and as of 2018 has still not been held" or something like that.
This format was heavily criticized by teams, drivers, fans and the press, to which the decision was taken to review the format before the next race: "to which" is not right, but I'm not sure of the intended meaning so I can't fix it myself. Was the decision taken to review the format because of the criticism? If so, I'd make it "... and the press, which led to a decision to review the format...". And do we know if the format actually was reviewed before the next race? Or do we only know they decided to do so, but we don't know if they did? If the review happened, there's no need to talk about the decision, so "...and the press, which led to a review of the format...".
In light of the controversy surrounding pit-to-car communications: there's been no mention of controversy; can we summarize whatever it was?
Verstappen was subject to increasing criticism over his driving standards: what are "driving standards"? Driving ability?
using strategy to get ahead of the Ferraris of Vettel and Räikkönen: "using strategy" is too vague.
Red Bull Racing decided to pit Daniel Ricciardo from second to prevent coming under threat from Hamilton: I don't follow this; Ricciardo was ahead of Hamilton; wouldn't pitting enable Hamilton to pass or get closer, and threaten his position?
using pit strategy to reclaim third place: I imagine this is clear to aficionados, but I've no idea what it means; is there a link, or could we get some kind of explanation?
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The format of the results by team needs changing back to how it is on EVERY OTHER F1 wiki page. Whoever changed it has destroyed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.36.34 ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the 2014 onwards table loses the visual pattern of the points allocation, the current two rows may as well be replaced with a single number for WCC points scored per round rather than a row for "the second placed car for that team" who unless you refer to the Driver's table you can't work out. Prior to 2014 the table was instantly more informative as you could see which car was, say, suffering more retirements within the same team. Ei2g ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 2016 Formula One World Championship has been listed as one of the
Sports and recreation good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 24, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Just a reminder that this article is listed at WP:ITN/R. However, it won't get posted whilst there is a maintenance tag on it. The referencing issues need addressing before it is removed. Mjroots ( talk) 17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion moved to
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Background_colours
|
---|
According to the FIA, drivers who fail to finish a race but complete at least 90% of race distance are classified. However, they are still considered DNFs. See the official classification for Austria 2016 as an example. http://www.fia.com/file/44607/download?token=Yp5eZzQ1 Because these drivers were non-finishers, they should be coloured the same as other DNFs. This is distinct from non-classified finishers. DrX au ( talk) 03:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is it confusing? The cars in question actually were retirements. For example Perez crashed out in Austria. The colour key says blue is for non-points finish or not-classified finish. Purple is for DNF / retirements. According to the FIA, 17th-20th places in Austria were DNFs. Therefore the blue background is incorrect. If other pages have incorrect entries, they can be fixed on a case-by-case basis. DrX au ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2016 Formula One season. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Harrias ( talk · contribs) 17:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up.
Harrias
talk
17:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the prose review completed. I still need to check on the references and images, and will hopefully get those finished soon. Harrias talk 11:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Harrias, Tvx1, where does this stand? The review has been open for over three months now, and Tvx1 hasn't made any edits to the article in over a month. Any chance of wrapping this up in the near future? BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this on. It looks like there was a fairly thorough review above, which seems to be all dealt with, so rather than go through the old review line by line I'll just read through again as if this were a brand-new review. I'll work on it this evening but it might not be done till tomorrow. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.
underwent changes regarding their power unit supply: a little stilted. How about "made changes to their power units", or "changed their power unit supplier"?
He joined the newly formed Haas F1 Team for 2016, where he was joined by: two consecutive "joined"s. Could the first be changed to "signed with"?
The race was originally scheduled to début in 2013, but has been delayed for four consecutive years: no longer the right tense, since it's not 2016 anymore. If it eventually happened, make it "was delayed until 201x"; if not, "but has been delayed and as of 2018 has still not been held" or something like that.
This format was heavily criticized by teams, drivers, fans and the press, to which the decision was taken to review the format before the next race: "to which" is not right, but I'm not sure of the intended meaning so I can't fix it myself. Was the decision taken to review the format because of the criticism? If so, I'd make it "... and the press, which led to a decision to review the format...". And do we know if the format actually was reviewed before the next race? Or do we only know they decided to do so, but we don't know if they did? If the review happened, there's no need to talk about the decision, so "...and the press, which led to a review of the format...".
In light of the controversy surrounding pit-to-car communications: there's been no mention of controversy; can we summarize whatever it was?
Verstappen was subject to increasing criticism over his driving standards: what are "driving standards"? Driving ability?
using strategy to get ahead of the Ferraris of Vettel and Räikkönen: "using strategy" is too vague.
Red Bull Racing decided to pit Daniel Ricciardo from second to prevent coming under threat from Hamilton: I don't follow this; Ricciardo was ahead of Hamilton; wouldn't pitting enable Hamilton to pass or get closer, and threaten his position?
using pit strategy to reclaim third place: I imagine this is clear to aficionados, but I've no idea what it means; is there a link, or could we get some kind of explanation?
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The format of the results by team needs changing back to how it is on EVERY OTHER F1 wiki page. Whoever changed it has destroyed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.36.34 ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the 2014 onwards table loses the visual pattern of the points allocation, the current two rows may as well be replaced with a single number for WCC points scored per round rather than a row for "the second placed car for that team" who unless you refer to the Driver's table you can't work out. Prior to 2014 the table was instantly more informative as you could see which car was, say, suffering more retirements within the same team. Ei2g ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)