Talk:2023 Dutch Grand Prix

The Lead

Island92, why do you believe that the lead should not summarize the key points per WP:LEAD. A notable aspect of the article is the Danny Ric/Liam Lawson substitution. The MOS should be followed unless their is an extraordinary reason not to, and I do not see one. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The entrant section reflects what may happen to drivers, not the lead. Lawson set to make F1 debut explained there.--Island92 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

So you believe that their is a reason to ignore Wikipedia's MOS, which states it should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that. See 2023 Bahrain Grand Prix the same section for all drivers who made debut. Here just following the same.--Island92 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because other articles don't follow the well established guidelines that Wikipedia is based on, doesn't mean this one should as well. That article's lead is clearly too short currently, and should be improved. If you don't believe that we should ignore Wikipedia's MOS, how does the current lead achieve the quoted requirements above without mentioning a key aspect of the weekend? Cerebral726 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed 2023 Bahrain Grand Prix, so the "we don't do it anywhere else" so-called argument doesn't exist anymore. Not that it worked as an argument anyway. The short-coming of a different article (it isn't like we reached a consensus for this at Bahrain GP) is not justification for this page fallingshort too. SSSB (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Driver substitutions for the race itself should be mentioned in the lead, since it constitutes a new entry to the WDC. Inadequate leads are endemic in our race reports though. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This should be in the lead. Although driver substitutions aren't leadworthy by default. What makes then leadworthy is the imdormation that someone returns to F1, or makes their debut after time out. Information about why the substitution happened, or Lawson's background is for the entry section. Lawson's debut is leadworthy. SSSB (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Changed my mind. If this were a 50s or 60s article where debuts happened all the time (because teams didn't have drivers but drivers entered themselves with team, if that makes sense) I wouldn't agree with its conclusion because debuts were very common and they weren't substituitions in the same way. But now these are rare and are amjor talking points of the weekend. SSSB (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

At this pint, we can't know whether the driver change will have been one of the most important events of this Grand Prix event. More important events could easily happen during the remainder of the weekend. the judgement of the importance of an event is also something we shouldn't make personally, but let the sources do for us. We should just look what ruled the headlines over the entire weekend and write an article in reflection of that. Tvx1 13:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles should be written in hindsight. If we get to Sunday evening we can always cut it. But most of the time, it would be one of the talking points. SSSB (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• In the modern era of Formula One driver debuts should generally go in the lede as they are a relatively rare occurrence and generally receive significant coverage from reliable sources covering the event (BBC, ESPN, Independent, Guardian, Motor Sport, Autosport, The Race, etc). In earlier eras they may be considered less ledeworthy (for example in 1994), but a single sentence saying "Liam Lawson made his competitive Formula One debut at this event, substituting for the injured Daniel Ricciardo at Toro Rosso" is entirely appropriate in this instance, while the main body of the text can go into further detail about who Lawson is or how Ricciardo was injured etc. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  All but two of these articles actually rather deal with the crash of Ricciardo and his injury (an even with Piastri's earlier crash) and only dedicate a routine sentence or two to Lawson replacing him. That is really more an argument to include him in the body rather than lead. I really think we're personally applying an undue importance to the debut aspect of his participation. Tvx1 12:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ricciardo being injured and Lawson replacing him are the same story and can be summarised in the same sentence. Looking at grand prix reports that are featured articles, the lede of 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix is three paragraphs and 316 words, 2008 Japanese Grand Prix has three paragraphs and 286 words, 2008 Monaco Grand Prix is three paragraphs and 308 words, 2014 Japanese Grand Prix is four paragraphs and 420 words, 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix is three paragraphs and 256 words, 1995 Pacific Grand Prix is two paragraphs and 248 words, 1995 Japanese Grand Prix is three paragraphs and 185 words, and 2005 United States Grand Prix is four paragraphs and 496 words. Currently this article's lede is only a single paragraph with 65 words, less than half the shortest of the aforementioned articles (I am not implying that any of those articles lede lengths should be used as a target, just that they give a general idea of what a fully expanded lede section can look like). Maybe the ledeworthiness of Ricciardo's injury and Lawson's substitution would be more questionable if the lede had reached such a size that it clearly needed to be reduced in length, but for the time being it seems entirely appropriate to include. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have to disagree that it's lead worthy. And while the crash, injury and replacement might be one story, were are giving undue weight to one aspect (the debut aspect of Lawson participation) of one segment of the story in misbalance with the attention the sources give to that specific aspect.Tvx1 14:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the entire situation can (and should) be briefly summarized in the lead. Something like: Liam Lawson debuted in Formula One at the race, substituting for Scuderia AlphaTauri driver Daniel Ricciardo, who injured his hand during a practice session. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  The lengths of other leads is irrelevant. We can hit 500 words across 5 paragrapghs without mentioning Lawson or Ricciardo. SSSB (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I consider this to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy; I believe it is notable to include Lawson in the lead because he substituted for a driver who injured himself at this event. It would not be notable (as a hypothetical) if Ricciardo had injured himself outside of the race weekend. This way, the lead can focus on the (hopefully obviously) lead-worthy notable instance of Ricciardo's injury and noting that he was replaced by Lawson. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Supposed "overtakes" record

There have been attempts to add a claim that this race had 186 overtakes take place during it to this article, all of which have referenced sources of dubious reliability (Forix says that there were 112 overtakes, for reference; I haven't found a number from any other traditional reliable source). The only source that's reliability is not so questionable that has repeated this claim is The Drive, which credits said claim to "an analysis by a Reddit user", indicating that this is not an official statistic. It seems that said Reddit user used a different methodology from the method used to count official overtaking statistics, which do not count changes of position on laps where a driver entered or exited the pit lane and only count changes of position which are retained until the start-finish line at the end of the lap (see this Autosport article). If more reliable sources were reporting on this Reddit user's analysis then there might be an argument for mentioning it in the article, but as it stands it seems completely WP:UNDUE to include it, especially in the MOS:LEAD. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not a reliable source. I suspect the reason why The Drive mentioned that it was Reddit analysis is because they know it is not a reloable source - ie. they are making it clear that they should not be held accountable if it turns out to be incorrect. I also suspect that if this was true it would appear on the stats and facts feature f1.com do. SSSB (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)