A bit of heavy editing and referencing has been done over the past few days and weeks to improve the standards of this article. A lot of attention has gone into referencing the article and removing POV statements. Something that I have found rare in Formula One driver articles is the lack of attention going into making the articles NPOV, such as Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso's articles. I'm hoping that this peer review gives me some better ideas on how to expand on the article, hopefully at the moment it is good standard :) Skully Collins 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the love of all that is holy, get rid of those melodramatic and self-contradictory section headings! (e.g. "1994, Determination After Devastation...Then Disaster", "1996, Hill's Best Season...And Ironically His Worst") An encyclopedia article isn't supposed have the same tone as a VH1 Behind the Music special ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I would also reduce the number of headings, splitting them by team : so, 1992 - Brabham; 1993-96 - Williams; 1997 - Arrows and 1998-99 - Jordan should suffice. Seb Patrick 12:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They look like wonderful h2g2 headings. I think I'll stay there and only pop in here occasionally. TRiG 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment I'm not sure how NPOV it is; there are a number of statements such as "Many would agree that Hill spent a year too long in F1, but regardless of his unsuccessful final season, he ranks as one of the best drivers to have graced the sport and was a fully deserving world champion." that really need some kind of citation if they're not to sound like weasel words. In addition, I feel that in 1994 section too much weight is given to the suggestion that Schumacher deliberately collided with Hill. I'm not saying he definitely didn't - but this is not a Senna '90 or Schumi '97 situation; the truth of the matter has never really come out, no official action or even condemnation was ever taken against Schumacher, and there are in fact some who believe the accident was Hill's fault for going for a narrow gap when he could have held off and waited. A sentence or so suggesting that the nature of the accident was ambiguous would be useful, since at the moment the article appears to make out that it's universally accepted as an unsporting moment. Seb Patrick 12:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but think about the fact that Schumacher KNEW his car had been damaged, I mean you don't just crash into the wall and say, "Hmmm...the car seems fine..", do you? and in Hill's defense he didn't know that Schuamcher's car was damaged and he's driving at speeds you'll probably never reach in a normal road car...sure, I do admit that it is a very POV statement, and I apologise for that (and well as the tone of this reply)...but I just feel so strongly against Schumacher for that incident :( Skully Collins 12:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I totally understand the reasoning behind feeling it was deliberate; and, while I'm personally on the fence, I agree that circumstances seem to point more towards it being deliberate on Schumi's part than an out and out accident. But like I say, it really helps an article if both points of view on something controversial like that can be represented. Seems like you know enough about it that it shouldn't be a problem! Seb Patrick 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Had another play with it - I think the key is to stick to facts and not to ascribe motivations to the two drivers. The anti-Schumacher view comes from the BBC poll. The pro-Schumacher view can come, strangely enough, from Murray Walker. I think what follows the quote given is words to the effect of:"but Michael says that he did not do it on purpose and I believe him". Certainly Murray has recently said again on BBC Radio 5 Live that he did not believe Schumacher did it on purpose. Perhaps that quote could be extended or referenced to give the pro-Schumacher view. 4u1e
- Heh, and YOU were more worried about the stig bit =P --Skully Collins 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I reckon they just haven't got that far down the article yet, mate! We'll see.....4u1e
- Heh. I thought the Stig bit was fine, actually. It mentions that it's speculation and not fact, cites examples of said speculation, and makes specific reference to the moment on Top Gear where they acknowledged the speculation. Personally, I don't think Damon is the Stig (I think the White Stig has been a number of people, such as when Heiki Kovalainen admitted to doing it once... maybe Damon did it once or twice, though), but the rumours are a worthwhile enough part of his post-racing career (in that he does talk about it rather than just ignoring it) that it's worth keeping in. Seb Patrick 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah! I concede defeat then.....for now ;-) 4u1e
- Heh, I think we're almost done now. Unless you guys have something else I need to do? --Skully Collins 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another little point I'd pick up on is at the end of the article, when discussing Hill's band. It says that 2002 has been a very busy year for the band, playing more than ever before., which sounds to me like it's either been copied from somewhere else, or was simply written a few years ago and not been updated since then. Either way, the tense is wrong - I'd change it to "2002 was a very busy year for the band", and then perhaps adding (if possible) a brief sentence outlining anything that's gone on since then (if they've pretty much disbanded, then simply say so). Seb Patrick 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed, I think it's better without that sentence :) --Skully Collins 12:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sort out the article structure. The "Awards" section info might work better in the lead. The biography sections are fragmented, with information concerning his F1 career interspersed throughout the middle. Try formatting the article into three distinct sections: 1. Life, 2. Career, 3. Miscellany. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Believe it now does so - three paragraphs & added mention of Schumi-Hill rivalry. 4u1e
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
- Can't see any use of units, so think this is OK. Cheers 4u1e
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]