Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Sources

Formula1.com

I'd like this removed as there have been numerous examples (see WP:F1) where it is hopelessly out of date or flat out wrong. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every race report cites it as the results source. There are mistakes, and other sources should be used when F1.com is wrong (f.e. Autocourse, FORIX), but in the vast majority of circumstances it is acceptable to use it. AlexJ (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gale Force F1 a reliable source

Didn't want to say it, but I'm iffy on this, partially only because I don't have experience with the site. Is it reliable.

Add'l sources for consideration

Formula One:
- F1-live.com , which uses the CAPSIS/GMM news wires.
- AtlasF1/Autosport - yes, yes, yes
- FORIX - technically better than F1DB or ChicaneF1, IIRC, but it is a paysite under AtlasF1.

NASCAR:
- Jayski.com : site owner often has press passes for races and tracks down info

Guroadrunner (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose jayski as a reliable source. I've seen him being interviewed on television; he prints whatever he finds on the net. He has no press background. He's been wrong too many times, so he doesn't have a good reputation for reliability. Royalbroil 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC stuff

Right now, for F1 racing, I won't question

www.formula1.com
www.autosport.com
www.grandprix.com

The others, I would like to see something to justify their use. To do that, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or you can show that the main author of the site or the author of the piece is a journalist/expert in the field, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully agree with that. The lead section of this list claims that a "description of why it is reliable follows each URL", which isn't true. In most cases what follows the URL is a description of why the source is useful, not why it can be considered reliable. The Golden Era of Grand Prix Racing link is a good example of how this should be done, with independent evidence given for the site is "generally considered reliable" (in the words of the MoS). Pyrop e 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]