Jump to content

Talk:2014 Japanese Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2014 Japanese Grand Prix is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 4, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 25, 2016Good article nomineeListed
January 5, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 4, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Lewis Hamilton won the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, which was overshadowed by a major accident involving Jules Bianchi?
Current status: Featured article

Bianchi's crash

[edit]

Much speculation StandNThrow (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and keep it out of the article, and stick to the sources. Most people in Europe will probably be watching the replay so there may not be much activity just yet. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the operation is to reduce severe bruising to the "head"? It would seem more likely to be to relieve intracranial pressure due to severe brain bruising; was the source machine-translated, or was it someone who speaks Italian who translated the information? rdfox 76 (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was I. I did look carefully at it with that very thought in mind, and I actually typed "brain" at first. But the source says "la riduzione di un grave ematoma alla testa" – testa meaning "head" rather than "brain" (cervello). I didn't want to put any kind of slant on the source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I (used to) speak French fluently enough that I can get the general gist of Italian, and saw that when I checked the source myself (still waking up--it's the curse of being a Yank F1 fan that I got only about three hours' sleep!). My gut feeling is that he has a closed-head fracture with subdural hematoma, and is undergoing surgery to remove the trapped blood, but that's not only based on my COMPLETELY not-a-doctor medical knowledge, it's a complete WP:SYNTH violation to include in the article. Here's hoping that once the surgery is complete, the hospital will put out a more detailed explanation. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm with you on that. I was looking for a source that gave further detail of that type, on a brain injury, swelling or something, but I couldn't find one. So I suspect that kind of information hasn't been released yet. I agree that the likelihood is that the next press release (probably from the hospital or the FIA) will give us more information, and hopefully better news. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Accident

[edit]

What's the view on Fatal accident? I keep reverting it to "Accident" because Jules didn't die on impact. I'd apply same approach to 1994 San Marino Grand Prix for Senna? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be classified as fatal in the article because the accident was the direct cause of his death. Regardless of the time that passed, he never recovered and it was the injuries sustained in the accident that killed him. In a large number of motorsport fatalities the death occurs later (ranging from minutes afterwards to months afterwards), but I don't think it makes it any less of a 'fatal' accident than if they had died at the scene. Fatal is defined as 'causing death' so I think that includes situations where death occurs instantly as well as situations where death occurs later but is still directly caused by the accident. OakleighPark 05:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there are many accidents that have directly led to deaths a long period later, and are classed as fatal- for example, John Taylor died 5 weeks after, but his accident is classed as fatal. The fact is that Bianchi had an accident, never recovered from it, and died as a direct result of it- to me that means the accident was fatal. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your views. I guess the fact that victims "survive" so long after an accident is more to do with better medical management and treatment than the nature of their accidents. For the sake of clarification then, in cases like Maria De Villota (I can't think of any other), her crash was not fatal on the distinction that she at least recovered sufficiently until the accident-related complications caused her death? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
De Villota's death has been, at most, only speculated (even by professionals, per the source in her article) as an indirect result of her accident. While those close to her and the sport realize to be true, it could not be scientifically proven that her cardiac arrest was a direct result of her accident. As such, this should most definitely be a Fatal accident, as his coma and subsequent death was a direct result of this incident. Twirlypen (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An unregistered user is continuing to add her to List of Formula One fatalities by the way, I think it's been happening for 2 days. I give up. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a concensus against it, from what I gather, and rightfully so in my opinion. But that discussion is for that talk page. Twirlypen (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then report that user for edit-warring if they persist against consensus or request the page to be protected. Tvx1 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lap in which drivers crashed

[edit]

The article states that Sutil and Bianchi crashed on laps 42 & 43 respectively. However, those lap counts are for the leader's laps. While I'm not sure if Sutil was on the lead lap, I am certain Bianchi wasn't. Meaning, while it said lap 43 on our TV sets, Bianchi was on his lap 42. Or am I breaking this down too much? Twirlypen (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both were a lap down. Bianchi was actually running ahead of Sutil, and they were running 17th and 18th (of 21) when Sutil crashed. Bianchi was still 17th when he crashed on the following lap. You're right; the leaders were on lap 42 when Sutil crashed and 43 when Bianchi crashed. I guess the rationale is that it was lap 42 of the race when Sutil crashed, even though he was on his 41st lap. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I had thought, because the results table shows Sutil completed 40 laps and Bianchi 41 laps, but the prose states that Sutil crashed on lap 42 and Bianchi on lap 43, which would be true by the race leader's count, I suppose. Twirlypen (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2014 Japanese Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Japanese Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found.

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Well written, complies with key MoS elements.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well referenced to reliable sources, no evidence of OR. Spotchecks show that online sources support statements, assumme good faith for off-line sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Excellent coverage.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Suitable images, licensed and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Pure FA material. A pleasure as always. JAGUAR  16:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Pérez status

[edit]

Sergio Pérez status is strange. He is listed a lap down which is correct. There is a slight twist out there however. He was lapped on the last lap that counted (so Hamilton completed laps 44 and 45 between Pérez completing laps 43 and 44). With 45 laps completed at the time of race stoppage, the countback takes the final result at 44 laps as it should. But due to lapping, Pérez's final time is actually less than Hamilton's. Should there be some sort of note on that? [1] (the source in Finnish but times should be easy to understand regardless of language) BleuDXXXIV (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BleuDXXXIV: We don't include the race times for lapped drivers so I really see the benefot of including this note, could you expand on why it would useful?
SSSB (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No specific reason, just wanted clarification from someone who sets the guidelines.BleuDXXXIV (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://janir.mbnet.fi/2014/jpn-gp.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Japanese_Grand_Prix&oldid=1218276559"