This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Citations in qualifying classification section[edit]
@Island92: The source you are insisting is adequate states the following: Zhou required to start from the pit lane after car was modified whilst under Parc Ferme conditions. In the article, the claim is Zhou Guanyu qualified 19th, but he was required to start the race from the back of the grid for exceeding his quota of power unit elements. He was then required to start the race from the pit lane as the new elements were changed without the approval of the technical delegate during parc fermé. As you can very plainly see, the F1.com source does not make any reference to the underlined sections, so cannot be used to source them. There is no good reason to remove the RacingNews365 source, which actually does include that information. Please stop making this difficult. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are reporting the same thing, actually. That sentence is a sum up sentence. F1.com does not provide entirely what FIA documents says, more detailed. Island92 (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence they report generically 'required to start from the pit lane after car was modified whilst under Parc Ferme conditions' rather than more specifically. But it's the same thing according to FIA procedures. Island92 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, "report generically" just means failed verification. You can't source a claim to material that doesn't include the claim, even if it refers to a "sum up" version of the situation. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least we need just one source, not multiple regarding the same topic involved.--Island92 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Island92 and 5225C: Island92, can you expand what you mean? The source from Formula 1 states Zhou required to start from the pit lane after car was modified whilst under Parc Ferme conditions. and the source currently actually cited states Zhou Guanyu will start the Singapore Grand Prix from the pit-lane after Alfa Romeo made set-up changes under parc ferme conditions as well as changing power unit components. [...] Teams are not allowed to make set-up changes after the start of qualifying, with the penalty for breaching this being a pit-lane start for the driver. The current wording is confusing and poorly written, and doesn't match the sources. It seems you are again violating WP:V, as 5225C tried to explain to you that "report generically" isn't a legitimate counterargument for a failed verification. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
F1.com sums up the most recent condition. Firstly on his car new pu elements were changed which would have seen him start from the back of the grid had it not been for modifications in parc ferme. He then was forced to start from PL due to modifications made in parc ferme. Island92 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds correct. Can you please add a source that says that? It currently doesn't match the source which only gives a summary. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source is less important than FIA document which claimed all above elements replaced during parc ferme hence PL start. But when you replace pu elements by exceeding the quota per sporting regulations firstly you are required to start from the back of the grid Island92 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that sounds correct. It would be good to include the document that states that, since it contains the information in the article, which is currently not properly cited. If not, then the information will need to be aligned with the source provided per WP:V. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out that the document does not say required to start from the back of the grid. He does directly say required to start from PL due to modifications in Parc Ferme. Island92 (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little confused, but it sounds like you are planning on adding in an additional source that still doesn't say everything the note says. So if we don't have a document or source that states he was initially required to start from the back of the grid, then it needs to be removed per WP:V. If it does say that, then that'll be great and we can keep the whole note. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was initially required to start from the back of the grid has been adopted here as in more than 300 GP. This is what sporting regulations say if you go over pu quota, as Zhou initially went. The fact that he was then required a PL start was brought in by extra occurrence (modifications in Parc Ferme). Island92 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you keep explaining that, and I understand that part. I am trying to work with you on meeting WP:V requirements which are currently not being met. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course are not met because that source leads to what happened last, jumping the first part per what sporting regulations claim. Island92 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are fine with the information being left unverified and will prevent me from fixing it? Cerebral726 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fix is not needed because the prose is the occurrence happening first per sporting regulations. What happened secondly is an addition. This sentence is present in numerous cases per procedures established in the rule. Island92 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
