Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Formula One polesitters/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:22, 11 June 2012 [1].

List of Formula One polesitters

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that the list meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing any comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~I see "pole position" and "pole-position" in the lead. Which is it?~~

all should now read pole position. NapHit (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes StatsF1 a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipated this would come up so i left a message at WP:F1 asking whether the project deemed the source reliable, unfortunately no one got back to me. There is not much on the site in the way of clarifying reliability, all I can say is that is regularly updated and the information is correct, that in itself does make the site reliable, but its the best I've got. Unfortunately, I'm yet to come across an alternative reliable source which offers all the information this site does. NapHit (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Should "The F1 world championship " be World Championship (since you have "Formula One World Champion" in the key...)
"Starting from pole position is important, as a driver has a greater chance of winning from pole than a driver who has qualified in a lower position on the starting grid." I think this is generally true although it sounds like original research. I know I've seen races where starting in second place was considered advantageous because of the layout of the circuit or because of dirty track on one side etc.

In light of the stats I've removed this sentence as I can't verify it. NapHit (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough "the driver that has qualified on pole position has gone on to win the race 347 times" means that less than half the races were actually one by the polesitter so statistically it's best not to be on pole...!
- Yes, it's statistically better to be anywhere in position 2-24 than on pole; however, it's [probably] statistically better to be on pole than any other individual slot. That's like saying a politician who won an election with 40% of the vote didn't win just because 20 people split the remaining 60%. :P --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"in as little as half the amount of races" -> "in as few as half the number of races..."
Perhaps worth mentioning that the qualifying sessions are currently referred to as Q1, Q2 and Q3?
For Raikkonen, shouldn't that be 2012–?
Similarly for Hulkenberg...

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments TRM, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (with regret) on sourcing, nothing else checked. Unfortunately, under WP:RS, it's for nominators to show that the site is a reliable source, rather than for others to show that it isn't. I too checked the site and found nothing that could help. Can you find reliable sources that use StatsF1 as a source themselves, or discuss it in a way that shows it's reliable? If not, I don't think it cuts the mustard at FLC. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it can't be proved to be a reliable source, unfortunately the folks at WP:F1 didn't get back to me when I brought it up at FLC. I have stumbled across this site, which does at least acknowledge its sources, most of which scan be deemed reliable. Another option would be to use the official f1 site, as although it doesn't list the poles in the way that statsf1 does all the information is on the site its just not collated. Would either of those be a better option? NapHit (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Silhouet site suffers from the same problem, really - saying that you use reliable sources doesn't mean that your output is reliable. The writer info is here. It's effectively a self-published source, and doesn't seem to pass the relevant test of WP:RS "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The official site would be best, although I guess that means some work... (to put it mildly!) Bencherlite ^Talk 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, have you tried the reliable sources noticeboard for their views? Bencherlite ^Talk 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message there and they confirmed your doubts about the reliability of the site. The only option now is to source the list individually, from the f1 website and some books that I have. There is this site which is run by Autosport, and a user in the f1 project has confirmed the information is correct. The only issue is that it is subscription only, not sure if that would pose a problem or not? NapHit (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's a reliable source (which I haven't checked), it doesn't matter if it's subscription-only. Would it be better to archive this now and to come back when you've revamped the sourcing? Bencherlite ^Talk 12:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've replaced the general ref with one from Forix, so that's sorted, its just the inline citations from statsf1 which are now the problem, as I can't find this info reliably sourced elsewhere elsewhere. So unless I can source it reliably within 24 hours then it would be best to archive the nom. NapHit (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.