Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 11

Force India VJM08B
ESPN UK, Planet F1, and SkySports all report of a "B-spec" car being debuted at the British Grand Prix, though only the latter has a quote from team principal Bob Fernley calling it a "new spec car." The first two seem to be an author interpretation, as they don't contain quotes from key personnel. While we know it's certainly not the VJM08 that was hastily unveiled during testing, do we have the necessary credentials to designate it VJM08B here? Twirlypen (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems, if anything, the SkySports source would be the most appropriate, if we were to use anything, as it has the statement "Force India will introduce their upgraded B-spec car at Silverstone for the British GP, deputy team principal Bob Fernley has confirmed" in the opening statement, followed by the quote itself. Twirlypen (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I say let's wait for Thursday's press conference and maybe even Friday's free practice. Both will probably bring more information on the matter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is no rush. Add information when and if it is published. We should not use our own designation, but the one that's given to it by the competitor in question. Tvx1 18:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Vijay himself called it the B-car at the press conference. But apparantly I am horrible at table language. Twirlypen (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , shouldn't we split the rounds field to distinguish when they introduced the car? Twirlypen (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not necessary. We have never done so in the past and besides, that wouldn't work with the sorting. It's an entry list, not a result's table. We'll list the indvidual spec's results on the car's article. Tvx1 14:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Bianchi tribute
Stating that the FIA retired #17 here is excessive. The driver changes section does not need tributes. Further, the notion that it would affect a potential would-be driver that may have wanted #17 this season is easily rebutted by the FIA rule that the number could not have been used for three successive seasons that a driver isn't in Formula One. So, even if Bianchi hadn't died but still never could race again, #17 would not have been available to anyone until the 2017 2018 season (2015, 2016, 2017 inactive). Twirlypen (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree! Didn't someone propose a F1 numbers list? If that happens, it will also be included there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ahem... Twirlypen (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, that was you! :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree too. It's certainly irrelevant here, because the 2015 drivers' numbers have already been chosen. Nobody is going to be affected by that this season anymore. Tvx1 11:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this . I was not including it as a "tribute" but because of the effect it may have if a new driver comes in. on what basis do you say nobody will be affected this season? Is this akin to crystal-balling :P Joking aside, unless the rules make it impossible, I guess the chances of a new race driver coming and wanting no. 17 are infinitely small. I like the F1 numbers list idea :) which could add a note against 17. Short of that, may be the 2016 season article could include "this" as being a number no longer available... but I see being back to the Talk page along the present lines CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think some people are getting carried away with the Bianchi tributes. Yes, it was a tragedy. But we deal in fact, and things are getting out of control. Just yesterday I had to delete a prominently-positioned quote in the Bianchi article where his family asked for privacy. That was the quote.
 * I distinctly recall that quote and its emergence because the text proposed by another user (who had no prior input in the article just like many others in these last few days) was too simplistic for the sake of prose (it sounded like the family had asked for privacy without any temporal reference). In hindsight, it added nothing so good move to delete it and it little to do with emotions but people taking interest in the article for the first time. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We need to be moderate about this. We can effectively and objectively represent the situation without getting caught up in the emotional response to it. And if you cannot separate yourself from the emotion, then you probably shouldn't be editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No crystalballing at all. The 2015 numbers have been chosen. The season entry list is finalised and the season is already halfway through. Any replacement driver drafted in during the rest of the season gets a number assigned by the FIA. Replacement drivers are not allowed to choose one themselves. Just take a look at how this was done for André Lotterer, Alexander Rossi and Will Stevens last season. Tvx1 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Twirlypen has explained quite sufficiently why #17 cannot affect any driver in 2015, no matter what. All used numbers are blocked for three years, even when the driver who had it does not drive in F1 at the time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, wasn't aware of the 3-year period. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's that and the fact that replacement drivers can't choose a number themselves anyway. Twirlypen's explanation does mean that we should remove the sentence on the number from the article as well. Tvx1 13:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a big hullabaloo over Felipe Nasr's number this year, and ultimately what got the article semi-protected for the entire season, with editors insisting that his number would be #40 because it was misguidedly interpreted that he selected that number as a practice driver for Williams in, when in fact the team was assigned that number, which in turn assigned it to Nasr. Despite repeated translation of the rules, people were adamant that his number would be #40 for this season. Once he became a full-time driver, he chose #12. Twirlypen (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * that brings memories of the discussion/argument I noticed about test and one-off drivers like Lotterer. Sorry for almost reopening this topic CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that #17 was Bianchi's fourth choice after his first three were all picked by other drivers... Twirlypen (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, there was someone who was adamant that Will Stevens' number would be 46 and that Roberto Merhi's number would have been 45. They chose 28 and 98. And it doesn't help that sources like yours claim that the test drivers chose numbers as well. We simply know that isn't true. Tvx1 13:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Format Manor note
I am sure I will enrage everyone by bringing this up after the long discussion on the project talk page, but, the way that note works now (in the driver table), is complete crap. First the fact that a bot needs to keep changing the header form, and second and more importantly, the fact that there is a 1 in the table, but no 1 in the note. I will change the format of the header now, in order to take care of that at least. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is better! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was an easy fix. No need to be so frustrated. I still don't know why that bot barges in though. Tvx1 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you cannot do a level-4-subsection before there was a level-3 one? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work&mdash;clicking on the 1 next to Merhi and Stevens' names just brings up a note that reads "1" rather than the actual footnote. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are not simply using the 'note'-template? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The formatting of the note does not seem to be problem. It seems to be the header. Without a proper section heading for the "notes", the links does not know where to point us. Tvx1 12:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And that was the advantage of the old system&mdash;it's the same as the one we use to annotate qualifying tables when a driver takes a penalty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But the system we use is not causing the problem. It's the header format we are forced to use by a bot. Tvx1 12:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had another look at it. It should be fine now. Tvx1 12:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still not working, sorry. Still getting the "1" as opposed to the note. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Tvx1 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When you click on the "1" next to Stevens/Merhi (which, as an aside, is very small; there are larger characters that could be used), the article should skip ahead to the notes section. But on mobile devices, it works slightly differently: if you click on any kind of annotation&mdash;be it a reference, footnote or anything else&mdash;it opens up a text box at the bottom of the screen (kind of like what happens when you click on a reference in the desktop version) which shows the content of that reference or annotation. The references in the article work just fine, as does the footnote in the points section explaining the count-back system. But the annotation for Stevens/Merhi does not. Rather than showing the text of the note in the text window explaining their Melbourne entry, the text window just shows a "1". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That is why I added the "unneccessary subtitle" to clear the MOSHEAD violation. Twirlypen (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , you're right. However, this is not an isolated case. It behaves like that whenever we used them in a Grand Prix article and it did behave like that in the old system here. We should revert to using ., the subtitles are no longer a problem. Tvx1 10:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I assumed you two would figure it out. I just wanted to say that I didn't add it willy-nilly. A bot broke the heading, I made a temporary solution that would keep the note active. Twirlypen (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have changed the character used for the annotation, since I felt the "1" was a bit small.


 * If we're going back to the, then I still think that all the notes should be kept in one place at the bottom of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have already agreed that it is for the readers' benefit to have the notes on the table directly underneath that table. Just use with different group names assigned to the different groups of notes. Tvx1 11:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, we figured out why mobile users were having problems. When you click on or highlight a footnote in the desktop browser, what happens? Do you get a bubble appearing with the text in it, ir does the article skip to the section? Because on mobile browsers, a text box appears at the bottom of the screen for all footnotes, references and annotations&mdash;so if the same thing happens on the desktop, what difference does it make? Or are you assuming that the average reader has a short attention span and needs the notes immediately under the table? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it highlights the specific footnote. Having the notes directly under the table is the same method we use for the championships tables and for the results tables in the grand prix articles. Tvx1 12:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tvx1 on going back to . Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@ &mdash; And in thise instances, we have multiple tables in close proximity all of which are subject to multiple annotations, like the qualifying table on 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. Here we have a single, stable table that is isolated within the article, and the nearest table&mdash;the calendar&mdash;is equally isolated and equally stable. If we were talking about the results matrices, where there are three tables (WDC, WCC and points breakdown) in quick succession, then I could understand it. But here there is no need to explicitly link the footnotes to the table in which they apply because there is no risk of confusion stemming from it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's isolated on top of the article (well a bit, the calendar is not far away). That's why many think that it's for the benefit of the readers to have it right there under the table in question, instead of entirely at the bottom. Like this anyone can see the marker and its explanation in the same glance. No need to click anything, no need to navigate anywhere. No need to do anything at all. I beats me that you genuinely it's actually better to have it at the bottom. Tvx1 13:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that all you have to do is highlight the footnote to bring it up. No scrolling or jumping around is needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That still requires a click and a second one to go back. The current system doesn't require anything at all. Tvx1 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all&mdash;you just have to hover the cursor over the reference/footnote/annotation for the text box to appear.


 * And if a click is really that inconvenient for a reader, I'd say that they have bigger issues that which formatting we use. There's really no good reason to use two different types of formatting in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter what we are going to do with this table, there's always going to be more than one format in the article. One type of notes for the results tables and another for notes on the prose. So, considering that keeping this note underneath the table it belongs to does not create any issues for either mobile readers or desktop readers I don't see the benefit of moving it to the bottom other than personal aesthetic preferences. Tvx1 13:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please keep it underneath the table. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's not argue about this again, please. Under the table is fine and is not unique to just this season. Twirlypen (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case, they should be consistent throughout season articles. They're called "footnotes" fora reason&mdash;they go at the foot the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, they're not. The ones were discussing here are simple called "Notes". Neither the template, neither their heading under the table called them footnotes. Tvx1 12:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest that you read WP:FNNR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Vergne leaving vs Vergne "being fired"
Vergne announced his voluntary exit on 26 November. Only after this did Toro Rosso release press stating he was ousted. Whether or not STR was going to fire him anyway is at that point irrelevant. "Oh well we were going to fire him anyway, so there!" is not a valid argument. Vergne beat them to it and those are the facts. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 04:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The facts are that Vergne never had any 2015 contract with Toro Rosso at all. So there was nothing for him to leave or for Toro Rosso to fire him from. His contract ended at the end of 2014 and while he hoped that we would get a new one he eventually accepted chances were slim and decided to move on. That is what the source is about. Tvx1 04:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems to be a simple case of two parties failing to come to an agreement on a 2015 contract, and Red Bull/Toro Rosso likely informing Vergne that they had decided to sign someone else instead. There was no firing nor any quitting, their deal simply came to an end.  That Vergne announced it first is not uncommon, Red Bull is not likely to put out a press release stating they haven't signed a contract with someone.  The359  ( Talk ) 05:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we could get some outside opinions on the matter. Perhaps seperate wording altogether is in order? "[...], while Vergne's contract with STR was not renewed. He went on [...]" sounds fairly neutral. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, "Vergnes contract was not renewed by the team"? maybe? CDRL102 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that should work. Tvx1 16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, I have made the neutral change then. This required further rewording, but it was mostly copy+paste. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Numbers and the results matrices
Every so often the issue has arisen that it may be difficult to find out to which driver results in the Constructors championships' standings table belong. One solution that has been put forward without much support, was to include the drivers' numbers in the Drivers' champion table as well (see this). Somehow we managed to overlook the fact that we can simply link the numbers in the WCC table to the corresponding driver's row in the WDC table. Clicking on any number would then show the corresponding WDC table's row on top of the screen. Like so:

World Drivers' Championship
Notes:
 * † – Drivers did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified as they completed more than 90% of the race distance.

World Constructors' Championship
Notes:
 * † – Drivers did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified as they completed more than 90% of the race distance.

Any thoughts whether this is a changed worth making. Tvx1 15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is very intuitive and I like it. Good job! Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 03:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see what is wrong with simply using the number. We don't have to lead every reader by the hand for every possible thing they may wish to find in our data.  It is not impossible, or even quite frankly difficult, for a reader to find what they are looking for.  Overcoding things seems a fruitless endeavour in my opinion, and only makes editing Wikipedia that much more difficult.  What balance is there between supposedly aiding a reader versus hindering an editor?  The359  ( Talk ) 04:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick question, can i ask why this season all of a sudden the driver standing pages use darker cell borders? I have a lot of respect for you guys filling it out and updating us, and i love you for that, but in my honnest oppinion, the previous format was much better to read, and easier on the eyes. Kind regards, Bytas194.78.185.181 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So if no one minds, i would like to request if it's possible to change it to the previous format. Kind regards, Bytas 194.78.185.181 (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have long advocated for switching to the old tables as well, even if for other reasons. We are likely to do that in the near future as soon as some display problems are sorted out. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the issue lies within your browser, not within the table. Tvx1 14:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the mean time the the mobile wikitables have been fixed (i.e. made visible), so we can switch back to wikitables now. Nevertheless, I'm am viewing this on Firefox now (very rare to happen) and while the borders are darker indeed, I really can't see why people claim this is bad. I doesn't create visibillity issues at all for me. Tvx1 13:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't understand why it happen's either, but since a lot of people use Firefox, I believe it will be an issue not just for me. It changed when I switched to Win 10, now the problem is not that the borders aren't there, but that some are bolded.... strange thing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Verstappen or photo of Verstappen's car??
A while back, the photo of Verstappen was changed to "a more recent photo" of his car. The caption was to emphasize the record-breaking start to his career. I feel this "newer" photo primarily features the car, not the driver, and isn't the best choice. Granted, I do realize the previous photo was of him in his Formula 3 days, but I feel that an actual photo of him would be more appropriate. Opinions?? Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 09:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Ive changed my mind and now I think the phto to be ok.Twirlypæn (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC) stuck comment by imposter user, this is not User:Twirlypen Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I was the one who changed that. My thought was, that it was a picture of the actual race where he scored the points, so that would be a nice touch... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a personal preference that it should be a photo of him, since the car didn't achieve the record, the driver did. Not a big deal! Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 10:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Article split/condense
An editor has suggested that this article is too long. Currently, the raw stats are as follows:

Readable prose: ~4000 words Article size (including markup, tables, etc): ~76kb. Article size (readable prose only): ~34kb

TOOLONG suggests a window of 4000-10000 words for readable prose and an article size of 50-100kb (prose only) before an article should be looked at for splitting or condensing. Opinions? Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 08:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Prose dissected... of the ~4000 words of readable prose, 1700 (less than half) are in the season report, meaning ~2300 words cover the various team & driver changes, regulation changes, etc. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Closing rounds
Does almost half of the season really constitute the closing rounds? I would prefer Asian and American Rounds or something along those lines. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote that back in March. It can be changed. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 03:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The change isn't any good though. Another European round is still coming up. Tvx1 05:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Where? We have Singapore (Asia), Japan (Asia), Russia (Asia), USA (America), Mexico (America), Brazil (America), and Abu Dhabi (Asia). Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparantly this portion of Russia is considered Europe, so I guess we will have to agree on something else. On a side note, next year's European Grand Prix, in Azerbaijan, is actually in Asia. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... that would assume that the border between Europe and Asia is clearly drawn, which is not the case. I cannot actually think of a better title... Maybe we make a subsection for every race? But that would probably bring the article to a size that is no longer acceptable... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just went to the Europe and Asia wikis to see what the line was there. It's in the archives somewhere, but we had a lengthy discussion on that style and the concensus leaned toward that round subsections were lazy. I introduced the three-section break for the sake of avoiding something like 2014 & 2013 where it's nothing but a verbatim description of the results table. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 22:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like "Late season (rounds)"? Tvx1 16:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or After the summer break (or something along those lines) and Closing rounds? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is more inspiration for section titles. Tvx1 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, that is actually what I had used when Zwerg Nase brought it up during a previous discussion. However, I opted to use much more neutral titles that didn't focus on a group of particular drivers. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(Unrelated side note) The Grands Prix table towards the end of that article uses the Swiss flag for the Swiss GP, but the French flag for the race report article. I do know that the race took place in France because of a ban on motor racing in Switzerland, but is this contradictory of itself?? Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 06:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It should have been the Swiss one. It was a Swiss Grand Prix in every way, organised by the Swiss automobile club (ACS). They simply held it just across the border because circuit racing is banned on Swiss territory. Dijon has actually often been used for Swiss motor racing events. Tvx1 18:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The paddock refer to them as "flyaway" rounds, why don't we? 58.246.93.91 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reason for Indian GP being cancelled
Is it really "tax disputes between the FIA and the Uttar Pradesh government" ? the reference doesn't support that claim and it makes no sense that the FIA (governing body) would have any financial involvement. 203.35.82.171 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording slightly to reflect the source. The FIA does have a financial involvement in the case: from what I understand, the case is resolving whether the fact that FIA holds an event in India should mean that FIA should pay corporate income tax in India. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A little late and probably moot, but the Indian government classifies the event as "entertainment" which is taxed more than if it was classified as "sport", which the FIA wants. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 17:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Bold text
In the teams and drivers table, all teams but Sauber are bold in the constructor column. I cannot seem to find the reason why. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed it. JohnMcButts (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2015 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150710023846/http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/59842/Fridays-FIA-press-conference to http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/59842/Fridays-FIA-press-conference

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits by
That is how your edit looks on my monitor. Horrible! Can please some one back me up in reverting that? Thank you. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is how it looks on my monitor... MetalDylan (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2016 (BST)
 * We edit so that it looks acceptable for everyone. And it did before your edit... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First image is how it looked for me too. So I've reverted the page to its original form. DH85868993 (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How it looks on my screen is determined by how large I make my browser's window. However, 's edits actually create more whitespace when the images are stacked on top of the table. The only way to prevent images being stacked on top of the table is by pairing (some of) them with the table. Tvx1 12:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have further reservations against putting the top three at the top of the article. Mainly, because I very much like that Vettel's celebration photo from Malaysia is next to its race report section... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

 * This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Formula One season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this. Relentlessly (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , I've just done a preliminary look through this article so far, rather than a full GA review, but my instant reaction is that this is some way off GA standard. The problem comes from the several sections made up entirely of lists. This does not comply with WP:PROSE. Moreover, the sections currently read as a sequence of disjointed facts: they are far from "clear and concise" prose (WP:GA?). I think this article could be brought to GA standard without too much work, but these sections need integrating into a clear narrative. Not every fact needs to go in: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd like to hear your response before I go further into the review. Relentlessly (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have to consult my F1 Wikiproject colleagues about this because the article structure has been agreed upon by consensus and in use for ages. I'm not convinced the list are indiscriminate. Tvx1 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently sections like "Team changes" and "Sporting regulations" are a disconnected set of facts, not grouped or explained in any way. Why not have a paragraph that deals with safety changes and another that deals with changes to penalties? It can be written in a much more engaging way. Relentlessly (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points here. In fact, I've had my reservations about those sections for years now. I always felt they became too technical and too summarized. Tvx1 11:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, . I have converted the list to prose. What do you think now? Tvx1 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks much better. I'll try to review it fully tomorrow. Relentlessly (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having taken just a quick look at it, I think the edits to the regulations section are an improvement in format and readability alike. With the team and driver changes, I am not so sure. Will have a closer look tomorrow. Thanks for the work, ! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll will leave for tomorrow then. Tvx1 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I did not get around to this today, I will try to take a closer look tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, . As pointed out below, we have a week to fix the issues. Tvx1 20:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a couple of comments below. A general comment on the team and driver changes though: I preferred the old way here. Not just because it delivers consistency with other season articles, but also because it is easier to find specific teams and drivers for the reader. And relevant changes were grouped here before the change, so the argument that they were "disconnected" does not really hold up for me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Review

I have done various copyedits. Please review and, if necessary, revert them.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments


 * "The following teams and drivers took part in the 2015 Formula One World Championship." This is a one-sentence paragraph that feels unnecessary. I think it could be deleted. A table caption would be appropriate.
 * "A number of team changes were noted prior to the start of the season." Surely this can be "There were a number of team changes prior..."
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "This ended a 20-year involvement of Renault with the Enstone-based team, after being an engine supplier to Benetton since 1995, and being the owner of the team from 2002 to 2010." No citation.
 * ✅ Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alonso's return to McLaren was remarkable, following the 2007 fall-out. Perhaps worth commenting on? There was loads in the media about it.
 * How long did Vettel spend with Red Bull and how long with the development program?
 * Regarding the above two bullets. Is it really that important to go into so much detail on those drivers in this article? Is it really that relevant to an article about the 2015 World Championship. Isn't the requested information better suited for those drivers' articles? Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would take a sentence or less, so it's not a lot. It's not necessary in either case, though I think it would make the point about Vettel significantly clearer. Relentlessly (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A sentence on Vettel would be OK, but we should be careful with a sentence on Alonso's falling out of 2007. We should avoid making implications that come from overblown media reports. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided the requested information for Vettel. Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It feel odd to speak of Bianchi "relinquishing" his seat, given that he was in a long-term coma at the time. Can I suggest "Manor Marussia also had two new drivers: Max Chilton [...] while while Bianchi was in a coma at the start of the season and ultimately died from injuries sustained at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix."
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The following nineteen Grands Prix took place in 2015:" As above, a table caption would be better.
 * "Calendar changes" could also be prose, not bullets. One paragraph could deal with the Mexican Grand Prix, another the German GP fiasco, and another the American, Indian and Korean GPs.
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The "weight and bodywork" section could do with some explanations of why changes were made, especially the FRIC, weight and intrusion panels parts. Just a sentence to give some context to the uninitiated reader.
 * ✅ by Zwerg Nase. Tvx1 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "The replacement of a complete power unit no longer resulted in a penalty" Does this mean "The replacement of a complete power unit no longer in itself resulted in a penalty"? Surely you couldn't replace the entire unit and not get a penalty.
 * ✅ Of course one can replace a whole power unit without receiving a penalty. You are allowed to use four of them per season, after all. However, once you exceed that penalties applied. Since 2015 they counted the number of individual components one used a penalties were applied per component used in excess of the allowance. The replacement of a whole power unit would this simply increase the totals of the different component used and penalties would then be applied if necessary. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Large sections of the sporting regulations presumably refer to possibilities that never happened, but the way they are presented suggests they were regular occurrences. I've tried to make it a bit more conditional, but it could do with wording that suggests these are new rules rather than concrete actions.
 * ✅ I tweaked the description of rule changes which were rarely or even not at all called into use. 10-second-penalties and power unit change penalties were a regelar occurrence (McLaren amassed 20+ grid penalties nearly every race) so I left those like they were. Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You have a long sentence about what happens if there were varying numbers of cars in qualifying, but this surely never happened, so is entirely theoretical and, IMO, unnecessary.
 * An article should, if possible, list all the relevant regulations. And it indeed happened several times that a driver was unable to take part in qualifying due to injuries in free practice, maybe not in 2015 itself, but it is definitely relevant in general. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course the last races of 2014 saw different entry list sizes with neither Caterham nor Marussia entering, or both entering or one of them entering. Tvx1 17:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be all corrected if the whole passage were written in a more conditional way. It currently reads as if all these regulations were regularly called into use. Relentlessly (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tvx1 11:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "On doctor's advice" presumably should be "on doctors' advice"?
 * ✅ I changed the word completely, to avoid confusion with the university degree. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Alonso was ultimately cleared to race" The word "ultimately" is a little over-used in this article. Unnecessary here.
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "prompting the team to continue to press their frustrations with Renault" – what does "press" mean here?
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Several paragraphs in "Opening rounds" without any citations.
 * I can't work out the basis for which teams have their progress described and which don't. As one example, Sauber aren't mentioned in the whole season summary except for their legal dispute.
 * That is indeed a problem. For Sauber for instance, we could mention that they started the season strongly, but then faded. If we find a good source for that, the results are not really enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added something about Sauber. Tvx1 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "having amassed a fifty-two point cushion over Ferrari after the first four races" That was said in literally the previous sentence.
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The entire "European and Canadian rounds" has only one fairly minor citation. Ditto "Asian, Russian, and American rounds".
 * "team miscues" What are these?
 * ✅ Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "FIA Pole Trophy" First time it's been mentioned. If it's important, it should have been introduced earlier.
 * It's a minor side competition. It's mentioned in the infobox as well. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but if it's important enough to mention who won it, it's important enough to mention what he had to do to win it. Relentlessly (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is actually my fault, since I wrote that paragraph. A quick explanation of what those awards actually constitute would be good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The legal battle between Lotus and Pic has yet to be publicly resolved" Still? If so, use, please.
 * Kinda done. It appears to me that the matter was resolved when Lotus ceased to exist. But I cannot find a source specifically stating that. I have therefore rephrased the section and added sources for the partial resolvement of the issue when the cars were not impounded. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a variety of citation styles. Compare the various different ways autosport.com is cited, for example.


 * I'm unsure about F1 Fanatic as a reliable source, especially as there are certainly plenty of reliable sources for the relevant material.
 * I'm not sure about its' reliability either, but some insist we must use it. Tvx1 17:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see that for information that's not provided anywhere else. I don't think there's anything in this article where that's true, though. Relentlessly (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a big fan of F1Fanatic myself, I admit. But as far as I can see, with them having multiple contributors, they also meet the relevant conditions to qualify as a RS objectively. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a bit more to do here than I had originally thought. This is on hold for a week, but if you need longer that's OK: just let me know. Relentlessly (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thing: We need to have a look at the reference section. Many sources are in an inconsistent format, especially concerning autosport.com. Also, all newspaper names should be in italics. I'll try to tackle some of the problems above if I find the time this weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Concerning Tvx1's post on my talk page: I can surely do some work on the article, but probably not before the weekend. Would it be OK for you to prolong our edit period to get this to GA? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Let's say a week today, 2 May? WP:NODEADLINE, after all. Relentlessly (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, with the Russian Grand Prix and finishing up Bahrain, I didn't get around to do anything with this article. Will you be able to make some changes over the next few days? I am not sure if I can before Ascension weekend., any chance to give us a couple more days? Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't want to keep it open forever, so I'll say Sunday 8 May as a deadline for now. Relentlessly (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did another few, but I really need your help with the issues with the race report section since you're much more adept at that as well as for finding a way to include the Pole Trophy. Tvx1 11:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Zwerg Nase, Relentlessly, it's now May 20, well beyond the offered extension. It's probably time to close this, unless Zwerg Nase can do those necessary updates right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, completely forgot about this while doing the more recent race reports. I'll try it tomorrow, if I don't, feel free to close. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not quite done yet. If you give me another day, I should be able to get it done. Also: I think Relentlessly is not on Wikipedia at the moment, so he cannot close the review anyway, as far as I am aware... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're making good progress, Zwerg Nase. Keep at it. With luck, Relentlessly will return soon after you're done, so the review can continue, and soon conclude. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now archived all the refs that weren't archived yet and in the process retrieved some dead links. Tvx1 23:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I am constantly trying to add new sources. For some statements though, I have difficulties, mainly the very general ones like "McLaren reliability improved". While those statements are usually true, few sources seem to bother making those statements. Maybe you can also try to find some if you have the time? Two set of eyes see more than one... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeking status report
Zwerg Nase, Tvx1, where does this review stand now? Have you addressed all the issues that Relentlessly highlighted? If so, we'll need to find a new reviewer to finish this off, since Relentlessly hasn't edited on Wikipedia in two months. If there are still issues remaining, I think it should be closed (recalling Zwerg Nase's "feel free to close" comment from May 20), which I am prepared to do; it can always be renominated when whatever is outstanding has been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think all the issues should have been adressed.Tvx1 00:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I completely forgot about this. It really is a shame that is inactive, he was such a good contributor... I sadly have to disagree with . The season report is still missing a lot of references.  Do you think we can make a ref-attack here over the weekend together? I am not sure if I will get it done by myself in just 1-2 days, considering there are also some current race reports to take care of. Otherwise, I'd say close for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll do what I can. Tvx1 09:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Let me know which section(s) you'll tackle, then I'll do the others :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on,, I thought only the season report section needed more refs? Maybe we should list the sections which need more here and then divide over the two of us.Tvx1 12:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I see, it's both Opening Rounds and European and Canadian rounds. Which one do you want to do? Often, you can use references from the race reports and copy and paste them here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll do opening rounds then. Tvx1 14:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

European and Canadian rounds should now be good to go, please evaluate (whoever feels responsible for this review now). I tried my best to put proper sources on every statement. The way it is written, a lot of it might sound like original research at first glance ("largest margin", "retired nine out of ten" and so forth), but it to me is simple deduction, not OR. Still, again, I tried to put the best sources I could find everywhere. There are a lot of archived links to the Drivers' and Constructors' standings now, to an archived link at the relevant time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Zwerg Nase, I see three items that haven't been addressed from the ones Relentlessly originally mentioned. The first two have to do with a preference to have the one-sentence paragraph before tables replaced with a table header. The other is regarding an addition to the "weight and bodywork" section, which apparently still needs fixing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the Weight and Bodywork section, adding explanation about the raised security around the drivers' heads and the weight. The suspension bit seems sufficiently explained to me as it is. As for the table captions, I feel that this should not be changed, since the way it is is our convention in the WikiProject. No matter how one stands on the matter, I do not feel it should stand in the way of a promotion to GA, considering that the hurdle should not be that high and the issue does not really concern the overall quality of the article but rather aestetic concerns., can you get the Opening Rounds session done soon? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have finally found some time to add the refs to the opining rounds section. I think it should be ok now. I agree with my colleague about the table captions. Tvx1 16:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Tvx1, I was surprised, and a bit alarmed, to see that you deleted the accessdate parameter from a large number of reference citations. The accessdate parameter tells the date that the person originally obtained the information from the reference, and is important, since pages can later be updated. It is not the same as the archivedate parameter, which simply says when the web page was archived, not when it was reviewed for the article; both should be included even if, coincidentally, they are the same date. Please restore this useful information. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this, access date is not required for linked documents that do not change. A properly archived link is a snapshot of how a certain web page look on a certain date and time and therefore will not change, making access date redundant. Something completely different, I noticed that ref #106 does not contain an url at all., any idea where that came from. Tvx1 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it's because whoever added the ref entered the quotation in there, which does not work with the template? But we should definitely change that. I do not think we need the quotation in the citation. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tvx1, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted what the citation style says about the access date field. Since the main URL-linked document can change regardless of the archived snapshot, and there is no evidence one way or the other that the document was accessed before or after the archive date, the access date is still required to say when the information was taken from the online page. The example they give at that link for when an access date is not required is of a published journal in hardcopy only: since it cannot change, the date it was accessed is irrelevant. (The same would apply to a printed book that isn't available on line.) Further, the archivedate is sometimes well after the accessdate, so the archived version could be different due to changes subsequent to the date the information was accessed: for example, you have articles written on March 15, accessed on March 21, but not archived until October 29. For that matter, you also have the reverse situation, where the article was archived prior to being accessed and may not reflect subsequent changes (written March 14, archived March 15, but not accessed until March 21). I suggest you refrain from removing valid accessdate fields from any URL-based reference in future, and restore the ones you removed here: it is and remains useful information. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any way to resolve your deadlock? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Awaiting a response from Tvx1 at this point, Zwerg Nase. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, you are thinking too much into this. Accessdates and archivedates should always be the same, because it's the archived copy which is assessed to support the content. When including an archived link that will be by default one is depicted to when clicking on the ref in question. So, in you first example the accessdate should be updated to the one of the archivedate, at which point it becomes redundant and in the second example a new archived copy should be made and used on the day of assessment at which point the accessdate becomes again redundant. I'm dead certain that I read somewhere that these parameters should not be used simultaneously or else I would not have been removing them in the first place., the most important thing about that ref is that we find that missing url, but I don't know where. Tvx1 17:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Found it, fixed it. To the topic at hand: I do believe that archived links should have accessdates as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you base yourself on any guideline or policy?Tvx1 00:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather base it on personal experience, that I do not always archive links myself but find some from earlier dates, then it is still a valid point of information when I accessed it, because otherwise the reader does not know wether or not I could have been aware of more recent versions. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case the absence of a few accessdates should not by any means be the deciding factor in granting an article Good Article status. Tvx1 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It was a pain in the ass, but I have now checked all refs without accessdate parameters and added today's date everywhere. , maybe we can now end the review odyssey and pass it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset wanted me to take a look, so I'll do a read-through and either note any final issues or just pass it if I find nothing of note. Wizardman 15:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only thing I ended up finding originally was numbers over 10 being spelled out (i.e. twenty-two, twenty-four). I always thought that was against MOSNUM but that appears to be allowed, though it does look a bit off to me. It's a minor thing though and I'm not gonna let a nitpick hold this up any longer, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman  16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wizardman. I appreciate you taking the time to take this one on. Incidentally, I tend to prefer writing out numbers up through 100, so I'm with MOSNUM on allowing it, though I'll naturally go with whatever style is already established in an article. (I've had to point out this particular feature of MOSNUM to other reviewers, who were asking for "eleven" to be written as "11" and suchlike despite consistent usage.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)