Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Formula One polesitters/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:48, 1 October 2010 [1].

List of Formula One polesitters

[edit]

List of Formula One polesitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is close to the featured standard. NapHit (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do I really need more coffee, or does this list not ever tell us what a "polesitter" actually is? Courcelles 16:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments...
    • The opening graf goes into too much detail, I think. We don't need to know what 'formula' means. We don't need to know about the championship. Simply establish what Formula 1 is and why it's important (the first sentence accomplishes that).
    • The next graf needs to make it clear that this is the current qualifying style. Maybe as simple as "Drivers currently have to compete..."
    • Likewise, you say "previously a driver was only allowed a single lap", that wasn't always the case, the way this is written it sounds as if there have only been two systems. Don't specify one over the others, that's not really necessary. I would at least drop the sentence after 'previously' and expand the sentence to sound better, like maybe saying how long the current knockout system has been in place.
    • You need to explain what pole position is (first row, in front) and why it's important.
    • Telling us how many races have been won from pole out of the total number of races would be very useful in communicating the importance of pole.
    • People probably won't be happy about using only bold to signify current drivers.
    • There's a stray "USA" in the country column.
    • Might want to add "=" to the ranks of tied drivers.
    • You might want to populate the "Last Pole" column for the people with only one, so that it sorts properly.
    • Personally, I think the Notes column should be changed to Sources. You aren't linking to footnotes.
    • Speaking of the notes column... good lord. You don't need to 1) link to the same thing 80 times, especially 2) with 80 different references. Give us a single general reference and you can probably drop the entire column. Seriously. Anyone who isn't included in the general ref, just put a reference next to their name rather than devoting a column to it.
    • I'm not sure the external links are necessary, as they have nothing specifically to do with pole positions. If people want to find a link to F1 or the FIA, they can go to their articles.
    • Side note: Heh, until last weekend, Schumacher had a *50 pole* lead over Alonso. Just damn.
    • As it is now, oppose. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've had a go at these comments, think it's in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from KV5

I was edit-conflicted in providing this review.

  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the list. You mention things in the lead, like driver age, which do not occur in the list, and things that are in the list, like active drivers, most poles, drivers to win championships, etc. are not in the lead.
  • Do not use bold as an indicator in the table per MOS:BOLD, change to italics or use a symbol.
  • "traditionally contest qualifying" - awkward wording
  • "pole-position" - this should be pole position (remove hyphen) and link on first occurrence
  • "contested by all the drivers" - how many is "all"? Is this 20 drivers or 2,000?
  • "20 minutes session" should be 20-minute session, as this is a compound adjective
  • "15 minutes session" - same
    • 10 minute session" - same
  • "seven slowest card" - eh?
  • "Historically there have been a number of different qualifying systems, previously each driver was only allowed a single lap to set their qualifying time" - run-on sentence with grammar issues. Suggest the following:
  • Historically, there have been a number of different qualifying systems; previously, each driver was only allowed a single lap to set his qualifying time.
  • Additionally, if there were "a number of qualifying systems", then why is only one explained here?
  • The "Notes" are not notes, but references. Change.
  • The date at the top of the first list is sufficient; remove the second. Also, remove the unnecessary sentence fragment above the list by country.

All in all, there are too many problems with this list for me to consider supporting at this time. Once these are corrected, I can give a more detailed review. — KV5 • Talk • 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

addressed your comments KV5 NapHit (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Switching bold for italics doesn't fix a thing. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it all to colours now, didn't realise you couldn't use italics either NapHit (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Golbez: How do you figure? MOS:BOLD says "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." Whereas bold is specifically prohibited, italicization is not. — KV5 • Talk • 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, really? I was under the impression any text styling by itself was not allowed for accessibility purposes (i.e. signifying data solely through styling). It appears I was wrong, screenreaders seem aware of italics. So, uh, NapHit, sorry, but also, colors alone? Bad. :P The whole point of accessibility is not to rely on beautification alone, you have to have some symbol. But apparently italics counts? Huh. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh the colours have all got symbols next to them should have made that clearer, so I think the issue is sorted NapHit (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me either with italics or the symbols as is. — KV5 • Talk • 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears people don't re-read the guidelines that often. From MOS:BOLD: Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: "Emphasis in tables" so bold is perfectly acceptable. Luckily. Sandman888 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not being used for emphasis, it's being used to communicate information, which, I believe, goes against accessibility issues. (Also, what would be an example of this emphasis in tables?) --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An example of emphasis (or indicator) would be to denote top-scorers in bold in a list of players. In short, using bold is bad in articles but irrelevant in tables. And no, bold does not go against accessibility issues. Concerns of WP:BOLD stems from before the current "emphasis in tables" bit was added. Sandman888 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think this discussion was enough to support your addition to the MOS of "Emphasis in tables". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Rambo. — KV5 • Talk • 21:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

Adding the manual sort causes the figures with the "=" in it causes the template to link to the number I put in the sort function without including the "=", look at the diffs if you're not sure what I mean, any suggestions? Preferably I would like to do away with the "=" but what does everyone else think?. Finnish name problem is now fixed. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is because that is how {{sort}} is designed (no links). You probably need {{Nts}}; I don't think doing {{Ntsh}} or <span style="display:none">...</span> for just the instances with = will work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Ntsh}} was the one I needed it's fixed now. NapHit (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting is now fixed. Unfortunately I don't have time to review this in full so I'll just strike my comment. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I think that the driver name should be in the first column as that is what the readers are after, not the nationality of the driver, it would look at lot better if they were swapped around.

I don't think this is necessary, at the end of the day they can still sort by name it's not like it's inconvenient for the country to be in front of the name, plus I feel it does not look right to have the country after the name, for me it does not signify the nationality of the person as clear as the other way around. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also vettel is =23rd in the standings and montoya is also but has one more pole than him. error.

Fixed this

oppose at the moment if these furfilled or good response will change to neutral or support.02blythed (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the country being first being in mind what you have said, therefore I support the nomination 02blythed (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from WFC
Comments from WFC
This certainly will be a pain, I really don't see the point in the names coming before the country, for me it makes more the nationality of the driver more ambiguous, at the end of the day the rader can clearly see the names, so I don't understand what difference it makes if they come first. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that this isn't a list of countries that have achieved pole position. Given that we have flags for nationality but not name, I'd say if anything it's the names that are "more ambiguous". --WFC-- 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've relented and the names are now before the driver's country. NapHit (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the tables are sortable, I don't quite understand the point of the rank columns. I'm sure if I was updating I'd be cursing every time Vettel or Kubica set a Pole. This is especially true of "By nationality"; let the reader decide whether Brazil or America are second, Italy or Germany are third, or indeed whether they would like to rank them at all.
I think this information is very useful, as the list is a ranking, not to give the rankings would be foolish in my opinion, you wouldn't leave the rankings out of a league table would you? So I'd rather the rank column stay. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's fine in the main table. But I do think it should be removed from the by nationality table, where there are two plausible ways of measuring it. Although at a glance the number of pole positions seems the obvious way to rank, as a Brit I'm more likely to say that "we've had more drivers on pole than any other country" than "drivers from my country have finished on pole more often than drivers from anywhere else". --WFC-- 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the rankl column from the nationality table NapHit (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for a see-also section; we have an overwhelming template which publicises all remotely relevant articles for us.
removed NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the columns in the reflist would provide scope to do something along these lines.
done NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think there is scope for images in the "By nationality" section. It should be possible to get pictures of Schumacher, Senna and Clark on the page at least. I say Clark over Prost because Britain tops "By nationality" on both measures, and because Prost, Senna and Schumacher all raced in the early 1990s.
added images of senna and clark. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally the detail on the different qualifying systems used should be expanded. I accept this may prove unfeasible though.
I won't be able to reference the different systems so I'd say it would be best to lave it out. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This flatly contradicts what Golbez said, but I think the first paragraph should be re-extended to mirror the list of drivers. Although admittedly personal taste, I doubt that anyone would oppose a list solely for a bit too much context. By contrast, under the current criteria it would be valid to oppose for a bit too little.
I agree with this and have added some of the first paragraph from the drivers list. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph, it might be worth mentioning the total number of pole positions, before going into the specifics.
I can't find a reference for the figure, so unfortunately I'm going to have to leave it out. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be the same as the number of races? Someone has to start first. --WFC-- 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope those help. Regards, --WFC-- 00:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments I should note that I am close to supporting.

  • I've given the lead a mini-copyedit and done some reorganisation. Apart from my next bullet point, I'm happy that the lead now meets the FL criteria, but that is not to say that it cannot be improved further.
  • I recognise that there's a hint of bias here, but something should be added to the lead to cover the "By nationality" section. I'll leave how it's done open-ended, but something is necessary so that the lead can be considered a summary of all major parts of the body.
  • The general reference is only accurate up to the end of 2009. Is there a second reference that we can use that just covers 2010? At the start of next season we could then presumably remove the 2010 reference, and add an equivalent for 2011.
  • On that note, any chance of restoring the Clark image to the aforementioned section? Moving Senna's image to the lead has really improved the presentation at the top, and on balance he belongs there. But taking Clark out altogether has left a really noticeable area of whitespace.
  • Shamelessly off-topic. I noticed that you've had a look at {{Football season start}}. Would you like me to work on it over the coming days so that other clubs (such as Liverpool, or indeed foreign clubs) can make good use of it?

--WFC-- 11:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you only need the first statistic the other ones are not as notable, added the number of polesitters and their wins I think that is sufficient. NapHit (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still opposing: essentially all my suggestions have been dismissed and since I put more work in finding those refs than the editors on dismissing my suggestions I won't bother expanding. Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of wikipedia is to improve articles within a consensus, I'm not saying we have reached a consensus here, but to say you suggestions have been dismissed is ridiculous, they've been debated and reviewers have come to the conclusion that some should not be included, some were taken on board, for instance; the number of polesitters is now explicitly mentioned, so is how many times they have won from pole. These are the two most important statistics as they highlight the importance of pole position, I'm not sure the other statistics (although interesting) should be placed in the lead, bombarding the reader with a plethora of stats which are not exactly relevant to the table would not be right in my opinion. Thank you for the source as well, it has been a great help. NapHit (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "to determine the drivers positions on the starting grid." "drivers" → "drivers'". Subtle change, I know, but grammatically it's needed.
Done
  • Remove comma after "at the end of which".
Done
  • No need for two links to the 2010 Singapore Grand Prix in the lead.
done
These two sources are the only ones I could find I think there fairly reliable they get updated often and the whole information is not available elsewhere unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2010 (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_Formula_One_polesitters/archive1&oldid=1089080208"