Lewis Hamilton

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist per consensus and extensive comments below. Geometry guy 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good article as it is missing several references for races which are easily attainable KnowIG (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing several references to important events like China 07 the Bridgestone comment is unsourced. Particually the back end of 09(italy onwards) and all of 10 so far only has 6 references altogether. that to me does not consistute a good article. KnowIG (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent edit warring and vandalism has been taking place on the article, directly contravening the essence of good article. KnowIG (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: vandalism reversions are explicitly excluded from the good article criteria. 4u1e (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, shouldn't there have been an individual reassessment at the article first, with time given for editors to respond? 4u1e (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is fine to open a community reassessment (and preferable if the nominator is involved in the article). Time will be given for editors to respond here. Geometry guy 23:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, although that's very different to what it says at the top of this page. The editor nominating had no involvement in the article before s/he made this nomination.4u1e (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there are several dead links in the references which I've marked, although I've not checked every link and some of the dead ones are not showing up on the link checker. I'm not familiar with most of the sources used, but are they definitely all reliable? For example, F1Way and crash.net. The lead doesn't seem to properly summarise the main points of the article. I'm also wondering if the article meets criterion #3. Although I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic (I don't know anything about F1), and I know it's already a long article, there are a lot of books about him in "Further Reading", and I'm wondering why they haven't been used. Surely there's a wealth of info in there.--BelovedFreak 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ddelist. A wierd one. All those books, yet they aren't used as sources. Some dodgy online sources in amongst what are certainly very reliable ones (BBC etc). Some uncited paras (someone has tagged them). But I also think it fails criterion 3 "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". There is too much trivia: my favourite piece of irrelevance? Probably "The next weekend at Monaco Hamilton and teammate Jenson Button raced with a diamond encrusted steering wheel. Hamilton's steering wheel had the year "08" placed on it in diamonds and Button had the year "09" on his wheel" (even if anyone other than his promoters cared about publicising this sort of stuff, the text needs copyediting). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on sources. It is indeed a bit odd that the biographies are not used to source the article - with the exception of Hamilton's autobiography, which is cited several times, and hence not technically Further Reading. Some of the biographies may not be up to date, but it is worth checking for up-to-date editions: for instance Worral's paperback edition was published in 2009, not 2008 as stated. It is particularly important that BLPs are reliably sourced, and tabloid newspapers are not famous for their reliability in this respect! The article relies heavily on Keith Collantine's blog f1fanatic.co.uk - similarly, blogs such as makformula1.blogspot.com and f1wolf.com are unlikely to be suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. Geometry guy 15:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comments. This article needs a deep copyedit. Some of the material is unnecessary detail, some is unsourced, some does not reflect what is in the source, and some is unencyclopedic. Here are some specific examples, which I hope will help to improve the article.
  • Much is made of Hamilton's first meeting with Ron Dennis. However, a brief look at the sources reveals some variation. What did Hamilton say to Dennis? What did he reply? Did he write "phone/call me in nine years" or say it? This is a good example of the need for verifiability - in particular direct quotations must be supported by inline citation to a reliable source from which the quotation is taken. In a case like this where sources differ, it may be appropriate to include in-text attribution, especially if a primary source (such as Hamilton, McLaren, or Formula 1) is preferred.
  • The Personal life section begins disjointedly.^{Now improved} His date of birth and father should be mentioned alongside his mother even though this is in the lead or the infobox. "White British" is a UK census term which conflates ethnicity and nationality. Presumably both his parents have British nationality, and this can be sourced.

    Some examples where the source should be followed more closely: "He extended his skills to football" (extended?); "At school Lewis Hamilton was bullied. In order to cope he took up Karate" (in order to cope?); "being described as a "Hoon" [boy racer] by the magistrate" ("acting like a Hoon" according to the source).

    "It was announced in January 2010 that they split up to focus on their respective careers,[26] however they were seen together at the 2010 Turkish Grand Prix". Apart from being grammatically incorrect (there are two clauses here), "it was announced" is vague and does not reflect the source material, and "however" is a word to watch in that it casts doubt upon the previous sentence without attributing such doubt to a reliable source.

    Why is "by the Queen" needed?

    Wikipedia biographies are not the place to advertise Madame Tussauds waxworks. Only include this if reliable secondary sources highlight it as significant in Hamilton's career.

    Why is Hamilton's decision to drop his father as a manager in March only referred to tangentially in an image caption? ^{My mistake, as it is mentioned briefly in the prose. We should be wary of recentism, but this is a significant event in Hamilton's career.}

  • There is a lot of "writing to the moment" in the article. In an encyclopedia, events that took place in the past are usually described in the simple past tense. Placing the reader in the moment is more suited to fan sites and journalism. This is mostly a matter of making small changes: "started living with" could become "went to live with" and similarly "began to date" is more encyclopedic than "started dating". Imprecise adverbs are also not usual in encyclopedic prose: words such as "eventually" (e.g. in "Hamilton was eventually fined") and "quickly" can be removed or replaced with more precise timescales; words such as "actually" editorialize (see WP:WTW).

    "This contract included an option of a future F1 seat, which would eventually make Hamilton the youngest ever driver to secure a contract which later resulted in an F1 drive" The source refers to the 1998 contract so the awkward "which would eventually make" is not needed.

    "Having clinched the championship, Hamilton missed the last two races of the season to make his debut in the season finale of the British Formula Three Championship. Here he was less successful..." Confusing in-the-moment prose.

    "This would have been 16..." is a counterfactual. Likewise "For most of the race, Massa was leading with Räikkönen in second. If this had been the case come the chequered flag with Hamilton in seventh place, Hamilton would have become world champion."

    "It was announced prior to the start of the season that Hamilton would be partnering defending double World Champion Fernando Alonso..." Apart from the "would be", who announced it?

    "Hamilton looked set for a podium finish with 15 laps remaining"

    "After securing pole position in China, which saw changeable weather conditions"

    "This moved Hamilton back up to fifth, ensuring that he finished one point ahead of Massa overall and winning the 2008 title. Hamilton's overtaking move happened after Massa had crossed the line to win. This meant that Hamilton had clinched the 2008 Formula One World Championship..." contains repetition, as well as awkward sentences.

    "The FIA have warned" should be simple past tense.

    "A chance for points, and even hopes for a podium finish came at the Nürburgring when he again qualified fifth..." is empathetic writing, not encyclopedic.

  • The article goes into unnecessary detail about the Formula 1 seasons, without making use of summary style (or in this case "See also"). This is a biography, not a race-by-race commentary!
  • Records: can this be converted into prose, with the focus on the most notable records? I saw one source (a reliable one I think) suggest Hamilton rewrote the record books.
  • Driving style: the material in the article does not reflect the material in the sources. Brundle's article does not refer to aggressive driving or oversteering. The second source concerns Hamilton's defense, not that accusations. The use of statistics to suggest confidence is synthesis without a source making the same link.
  • The Helmet. "Due to the fact that Hamilton has said in the past that Ayrton Senna was his hero, some people assumed that his helmet is yellow in honour of him. In actuality it was made yellow so that his father could tell which kart his son was driving back in his karting days." Poor prose and weasel words, but more seriously, it misrepresents the source, which reports on Hamilton's explanation, then casts doubt on it. The article in contrast, imbues Hamilton's explanation with authority and dismisses the source. This is editorializing.
  • Racing results: overlinked.

In summary it seems to me that the article could be delisted for failing any of the following GA criteria: 1(a) prose style; 1(b) lead, words to watch and list incorporation; 2(a-c) unsourced or uncited material, synthesis; 3(a) missing significant information, 3(b) detail, summary style. Further the overall empathetic presentation and choice of material may suggest an inadvertent bias, contrary to criterion 4.

Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 18:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with the vast majority of the comments above, and that the article should probably be delisted. In particular, referencing is copious, but of poor quality, the prose is far too detailed on a race by race basis and includes too much trivia. I had a hack at the 2009 season section a little while ago to shorten it and give an overview of the season, but the same is needed throughout and I don't have time to do it. I note that one point raised is a WP:F1 convention: 'Overlinking' in tables (because for that purpose it is far more convenient for the reader than linking only on first occurence) is standard in F1 articles, including other GAs and FAs. 4u1e (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I propose to close this discussion as delist in a couple of days on that basis, as it has been open for some time now. Hopefully, the GAR has generated enough comments to improve the article once regular contributors have time to do so. Concerning the overlinking in the tables, one thing that grates is the separate linking to Vodafone, McLaren and Mercedes. Earlier in the article Vodafone McLaren Mercedes is a single link, which redirects to McLaren. This would be more appropriate. If it does not fit in the tables, then why not use simply McLaren? Geometry guy 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]