|
Just a note on neutrality: just because a statement or opinion is sourced, it doesn't justify its inclusion or mean it's correct to state it as an encyclopaedic fact. Statistics such as the 6/11 Red Bull stat and Mercedes being "inadequate" are violations of WP:NOR and WP:NEWSOPED, respectively. In the case of Lewis Hamilton, where brevity has been prioritised throughout the article, please exercise caution when making such statements as they are generally non-notable, unduly weighted, and otherwise read as biased. Its a GA of top-importance to WP:F1, so maintaining—and fixing—its neutrality is critical, hence my edits. I would avoid pointing fingers where the blame is not wholly verifiable. His shortcomings in qualifying are certainly verifiable, but I would still find a way to objectively state his qualifying performance without giving an opinion, such as his head-to-head with Russell and maybe a quote from Hamilton himself (his calling himself slow was pretty damning and gained a lot of traction). I would not collectively describe Mercedes' season as inadequate when they've won four Grands Prix, which is four times what they had the previous two seasons combined, and Russell would be fourth in the WDC had the rub-of-the-green been remotely on his side. So you're aware, I'm not trying to go out of my way to undo your generally good work, I'm just trying to maintain the standard of the page; thank you for your contributions! Ultimately, I think the F1 career summary needs expanding and his extra-curriculars trimmed—a lot of which reads as promotional—anyway. MB2437 02:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My intentions do not include violating any Wikipedian policies. Sincerely, what I do add noteworthy material to the article as events unfolded. This applies to all of my work, including the Red Bull stat and the Mercedes claim. As I mentioned earlier, the Red Bull stat further, though concisely, clarifies the significance of the performance gains they made over Mercedes. I still believe it should remain in the article at least until a new consensus is reached. I did not mean to imply that "Mercedes' season was inadequate," but rather their performance. Sure, they won 4 Grands Prix, but performance-wise, they were not at the same level of their rivals in those victories, except for one (at Las Vegas). Maybe "inadequate" was not the correct word, but that was the intended meaning.
- I am uncertain about adding the H2H stat and Hamilton's claims. The article does not include such stats, and I do not see why it should be added, since it would not add much beyond simply stating that he struggled in qualifying. Hamilton's claims are inconsistent; days after he said, "I've still got it," I think those were spoken in frustration and the media is just overdoing it. What I truly cannot believe is how can an article like Michael Schumacher can be a GA when it reads like an advertisement.
- Anyways, thank you for your note, and I appreciate your kind words. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I know there's no bad intentions there, and I also know all too well how daunting all the procedures and policies are to new members, but they are paramount to an article of this importance and shouldn't be glossed over to suit a narrative. If the stat was that important, it would be discussed in secondary, independent analyses of the season, which is the general inclusion criteria for content on Wikipedia. The significance was that Verstappen and Hamilton were closely matched, which was widely discussed. In an article explained in this level of brevity, I would be looking if several sources are discussing it to satisfy WP:DUE. No original research is a crucial policy.
They were not at the same level of their rivals in those victories , they were the fastest team in Canada, Britain and Belgium. The head-to-head stat is being widely discussed[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] regarding Hamilton's season, and Hamilton's claims were widely published.[6][7][8][9][10][11] I'd say the former is more crucial to include than the latter, as it has continually been discussed for half of the season. It's more sensible here to use facts addressed neutrally, rather than opinions stated as facts, which are non-encyclopaedic and should be avoided where possible. I also believe Schumacher's article needs extensive work; generally, F1 driver articles are of pretty poor quality, which is most of what I've been working on over past months. MB2437 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm writing to level set regarding your comments on my earlier edit on the Hamilton article. As the article notes, Hamilton said that he wanted a new work environment, an allusion to difficulties in his relationship with Mercedes. To provide context for that otherwise unsupported statement, I think it's important to note not just that Hamilton was upset about Mercedes not following his instructions when designing the W13, but also that Toto Wolff ignored his request to not promote Russell. For similar reasons, it is relevant that Ferrari catered to Hamilton's concerns by redesigning the car one year before major reg changes, and that Mercedes belatedly attempted to do the same. The other edits (Elkann, testing new parts) I don't feel too strongly about. Thanks for considering my comments. Namelessposter (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I found it quite disappointing to have to undo some of your work. I am unsure about the claim that Hamilton's relationship with Mercedes became strained, as there are no major sources that discusses this matter. Adding their disagreements, such as the promotion of Russell, feels speculative and creating a narrative that is not backed by reliable sources. I considered adding information about Ferrari's preparations ahead of Hamilton's arrival, but ultimately decided against it. It seemed overly detailed and technical, since similar changes in his past seasons have not been included in the article. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m a little confused by your “quite disappointing” comment. Do you mean “it was a shame to undo you since I value your contributions” or “your additions were disappointingly low-quality”? I don’t mind criticism but prefer when it’s easier to interpret.
- To your substantive points, I do not understand why Hamilton’s public disagreements with Toto about Merc’s two biggest decisions of the ground effect era are too “speculative” to be included in Wikipedia. These are statements supported by direct and public quotes from Hamilton himself (as the sources I included attest), who told the BBC in 2023 that Mercedes didn’t listen to him about the W13 and needed to show “accountability,” and Netflix in 2024 that Mercedes refused to implement his requested changes.
- I also do not know what technical changes have been omitted that were of equal or similar significance to Ferrari overhauling their car one year before regulations change right as Hamilton arrived. He only changed teams once in his career before this. If you’re referring to Merc hiring Toto Wolff for 2013 as well, I think that might warrant inclusion. I would agree that the fact that the car itself was modified is not particularly relevant to the Hamilton article, as regulations change, but the fact that the car changes were out of sync with the regulation change schedule and coincided with Hamilton’s arrival increase their salience. Namelessposter (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is about the former, because I understand how frustrating it is see hard-wrote work being undone. Hamilton’s objections to Mercedes’ 2022-23 car concept are already addressed in the article, feel free to add more into it if you think it has not been covered adequately. What I am unsure about is creating a narrative around Hamilton’s relationship with Mercedes becoming strained, as it is not entirely backed by reliable sources. I remember instances in the past where technical changes were made upon Hamilton's request, such as in early 2009 with McLaren and potentially in 2017 or 2018 with Mercedes. However, since these changes that did not occur during team switches, they may not be as relevant for inclusion in the article.
- A key factor that made me decided against including details about Ferrari’s changes is the lack of reliable sources. The source you provided seems to speculate that these changes were made to favor Hamilton’s driving style, but as we both know, Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. If you are able to find reliable sources that directly supports this claim, feel free to add into the article. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. I'm in no hurry to develop the Hamilton article, which doesn't need to change day to day. With respect to the Ferrari tech specs, we can certainly hold off until the car is revealed, at the very least. Similarly, with respect to the Mercedes relationship, I expect Hamilton to shed further light before the start of the season, e.g. on Drive to Survive.
- In the meantime, I suggest adding the following to the Ferrari section: <At Ferrari, Hamilton rejoined his junior team principal Frédéric Vasseur and Mercedes chassis designer Loïc Serra. (Cite, cite.)>
- Although my understanding is that Serra left Mercedes due to disagreements he shared with Hamilton over the 2022 car concept, there's no hurry to add this right now. Namelessposter (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, waiting for more details on the Hamilton-Mercedes relationship is the sensible approach. Hamilton reuniting with Vasseur would be a great addition to the article—please feel free to proceed with it. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
