Talk:Damon Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Damon Hill 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. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Selected Article

It has been suggested on Portal_talk:Formula One that this article be a 'selected article' on the F1 portal. A couple of things probably need clearing up to achieve this:

  • References - most important! Someone must have a biography or have found a suitably authoritative webpage. Pretty well referenced now. 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead length - need a slightly longer lead to use in the 'selected article' box on the portal page. You know the score, establish notability and pique the interest of the reader. Done 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably a general spelling/grammar etc check. Done 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Also things like Kingboyk's suggestion that year links should in general be to the F1 season summary for that year. Done 4u1e31 May 2006

On that basis I have put Damon Hill on the Formula One portal as of 9 June 2006. Cheers for all the hard work! 4u1e 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also have a few more pics and a little expansion of the 1992 part? --Skully Collins 09:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Depends what standard we're trying to get to. I'm still thinking about how all of this works, but it seems to me that F1 doesn't have enough really good (Good Article or higher) articles to rotate them as 'selected articles', so the standard will necessarily be lower (perhaps corresponding to B-class of the grading scheme. Selected articles could then be improved further to good and, who knows, eventually to featured article status. I think this article now meets the B-class criteria (and anyway I originally said I wanted to change articles by mid June, and this one goes rather well with the British GP this weekend!
Please do continue to improve it though! Perhaps we could consider getting to a GA standard? 4u1e 11:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No Problem ^_^...Can you just give me a few points or facts the article makes that would need sources then? --Skully Collins 12:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
See below 4u1e 01:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

Although it's a book focused mostly on the Benetton efforts in the 1993 season (I think, I'll check tonight), it does have a considerable amount of the rivalry between Hill and Schumacher during that season and has a pretty large bit about the memorable race they had in Spa Francorchamps in that season, so I'll try and cover that season, reference wise... --Skully Collins 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Stuff! After some searching, I find I have got a book on Jordan's 1998 season - which should be OK for part of this as well. Anyone got anything covering Arrows, or Damon's pre-F1 career? 4u1e 6 June 2006

...Just one question: How do I refer to the book in the "notes" section? Do I put it as: [Book Name], [Aurthor]

or is there something else I need as well? --Skully Collins 06:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of working out how to do this myself. The only fairly thoroughly referenced F1 articles I can think of are Mark Webber, Fittipaldi (constructor) and Brabham Racing Organisation, but I think the Fittipaldi one is the only one that has book refs. What I've tried to do with the latter two is give general 'references' that cover the majority of the topic, and then use the 'notes' thing to pick off specific points that aren't covered in those or that seem to require extra justification - I've probably overdone it on the Fittipaldi article in its present form!

I'm assuming that your book is on 1994 not 1993? If so, I'd guess you'd be using notes to pick off specific points such as "Hill was able to cope with the pressure admirably" and "[Schumacher] collided with Hill in a clumsy defensive move". Much of the rest of the season is covered by the blanket 'All Formula One race and championship results are taken from...' bit at the bottom.

To answer your specific question, the format I've used for books is: [Author] [publication year] [book title] [page number, if appropriate] [publisher], the idea being to give a reader the best chance to find the reference themselves. I've also included a link to the books Amazon page and the ISBN where known.

There's more (much, much more) on this at WP:REF and I'm not claiming to have got it 100% right! Hope that helps. 4u1e 7 June 2006

OK - I've put a couple in for 1998. It's not perfect, but I think it will do for now, we're not shooting for FA quality just yet! 4u1e 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've ref'd the www.formula1.com 'hall of fame' article on Damon, which covers much of this, although still not the individual season details. It also contains some interesting additional info on Damon's early life, which it would be worth bringing into the article at some point. 4u1e 06:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Anyone mind if I put some sourced quotes at the end of each season? --Skully Collins 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

A little Off Subject - I was directed to a page displaying the Hammer and Cycle after clicking on the (more ) button, with the statement Wikipedia is communism. An obvious vandalism. I found it very difficult to report said actio. I went thru the bug search, file a bug, etc.

There needs to be a REPORT VANDALISM button to click on. It is way too tedious to wade thru page after page of stuff to do so. I lost count after 10 pages.

Is There a one stop and shop action one can do?

Quickest thing is to correct it yourself, although I appreciate it's not always easy to do! 4u1e 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow - you're right, it is hard to report it. On the front page, I wouldn't worry abou it. Someone will pick it up and correct it pretty quickly! 4u1e 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well this is the one thing I was worried about when Hill made the main page...knowing that vandals prefer the "Article of the Day" to vandalise. --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is the problem with getting on the front page - it becomes a "come and get me" plea for people to vandalise! Still, it's only for today... and the article will always have the prestige of having been there (and having beaten Schumi there ;-) )! Seb Patrick 11:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Your right Seb. But I'd like to see Wikipedia Semi-Protecthe "Article of the Day". It really saddens me that so many English speaking Wikipedians wish to vandalise one of the Idols of British motorpsort. --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point, actually. I'm guessing the issue has been debated, but it seems strange that they wouldn't semi-protect the articles, at least for the day that they're on the front. Sure, you're going to get a handful of good-faith edits from anons, but for the sake of one day, surely it's better to avoid the vandalism... Seb Patrick 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure enough, it has been debated, and there are reasons for it. I can sort of understand - it's still irritating, though. Seb Patrick 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Did Anyone notice that Damons picture was replaced by a picture of bulbasaur for a few minutes?--Pokettrokett 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stig

I've just removed the recently added sentence 'Damon Hill is rumoured to be The Stig' from the article.

If anyone feels really strongly about it, I suppose it could go back in, but I would argue against it on three counts:

  • No reference given - and all I can find on Google are various forum discussions about Top Gear.
  • Dubious notability - I think just about every UK F1 driver has been 'rumoured to be the Stig'. I found mentions of Mark Blundell,Johnny Herbert, Damon Hill and many others. Damon does not seem to be the most likely candidate according to the various forums. According to the Stig article on Wikipedia, there probably isn't even 'a Stig' any more, with the role being taken by various people as occasion demands.
  • Even if referenced and notable in itself, is it significant compared to Damon's other achievements? Mention of the the Stig is relevant on Perry McCarthy's page, since (despite trying!) he never achieved very much in F1. Even if true, how much relevance would it have here?

I don't think it adds to the article, although I'm always interested to hear contrary views. 4u1e

I've added part of the interview with Hill on Top Gear where Clarkson makes a joke about him being the Stig...is that okay? --Skully Collins 12:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Weeeelll. I still don't think it should be in there, because of my second two points above, and it's still not actually referenced! :-) Consider whether it's the sort of thing you would expect to see in an encyclopaedia - I'll leave it alone for now and we'll see if a consensus develops. (Nice work on all the references, by the way. I think we could lose the 'No refs' tag at the top of the article, don't you?) 4u1e (Done 4u1e 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Comparison against GA standard

Out of interest, I'll try and compare the article in its current form to the GA and see what might need doing. (This might take a while to go through, so bear with me!) WP:GA says a good article is:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
Good. There are some rough edges in the prose, probably due to having been expanded quite quickly! Should be easy enough to smooth out. Not sure about the helmet section - the quote duplicates the first para - there're quite a lot of quotes already, so perhaps just write it as prose and use the quoted text as the reference. Not sure about the balaclava bit - wasn't that the same for everyone, and therefore non-notable? I'd drop it, I think. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
Looks good to me 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
Haven't checked this yet! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
Most of it is sourced, but there are some elements that are not:
  • Attendance at 'Haberdashers Askes School' (An Easy One :D Skully Collins 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
  • 'Showing occasional flashes of speed...never winning a F3000 race' unless these are covered by note 5, but I assume they are not as the footnote comes before these statements. 'Flashes of speed' could be considered POV language, I suppose. (Removed possible POV, as well as re-phrasing it for the sake of the source Skully Collins 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Getting the Williams seat ahead of Brundle, I remember this, but it doesn't seem to be referenced.
  • Benefitting from Prosts experience
  • The pre-season betting was that Senna would coast to the title...' (Skully Collins 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
  • 'A clumsy and desperate defensive move' - the current refs don't quite go to the heart of it, they establish that there was an incident and that many people felt it was unsporting, not that it actually was unsporting. It might be better, and more neutral, to leave out the 'clumsy and desperate' bit. Done 4u1e 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I've exapanded further into that accident...any better? Skully Collins 09:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'For 1995 Hill was confident of title glory'
  • 'In 1996 the williams was clearly the quickest car'
  • '10p washer on the Arrows' (Done Skully Collins 14:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Hydraulic Problem))
  • 'Silenced the critics who said he could only win in the best car' I tried and failed to find one for this! I remember the incident though.... (Removed as I cannot find ANY sources...I'll keep it here on the discussion page as others might be able to source it Skully Collins)
  • Most of 1999 (except race results)
  • Referred to Formula One 1999 Book (See References)Skully Collins 09:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Notable Battles - I think you must have refs for these though, as you've given quotes. Some of them are covered in the www.formula1.com general ref at the bottom of the page.
  • Still not convinced about the Stig thing! :-D 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;
sources are cited, and done so in-line (to the best of my understanding!) 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
Haven't checked this yet! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
Seems fine 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

Generally very good. Minor points only:
  • Could probably use more on his early life and family, this is an article on him, not just his racing.
  • I know there's a list of clashes between Hill and Schumacher, but the prose in the career summary doesn't really mention the rivalry, it's a long time ago now but before Alonso and Hakkinen, Hill was Schumi's main rival and there were sparks between them in the press! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
Good, I'd say. A few POVs creep in.
  • 'After some bad luck' (in 1993 section) - POV really, what is bad luck? Should be easy enough to find some non-partisan words to describe it, like: 'After mechanical failures while leading three races, Hill finally won the...' (check the facts, that's from memory!) Done. 4u1e 12 June 2006
  • 'clumsy and desperate move' (from Schumacher at Adelaide 94) - not really neutral Done. 4u1e 12 June 2006
  • 1997 Hungary - 'astonishing win', 'amazing achievement', 'a fantastic result' - yes they were, but this can be presented by stating the facts, for example 'qualified third in a car which had not qualified higher than [X - presumably a high number!] place all season'. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Done 4u1e 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
Seems OK to me 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
On a more careful reading, the 'Notable battles' bit tends to the non NPOV, doesn't include a Schumacher-side view. Bit tricky without the references, of course! 4u1e 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

Obviously we'll have to wait and see how this one turns out! 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
Seems OK to me, current images have copyright tags and captions. Would be nice to have one of him in a Jordan - and that picture of him and Schumacher coming together in 1994 would be great if it is usable. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.


Hope that doesn't sound negative. I think it's a good article, I was just looking at what might be needed to make it a formally Good Article! Many of the references would be covered by adding a good biography under the general references, although someone would have to actually read the thing and confirm that the facts as reported are correct. 4u1e 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, that's the problem...I was really concerned about that Adelaide 94 bit...because to me it was a defensive move that wasn't nessesary, I mean he could see Hill in his wing mirror couldn't he? Oh, well...no use crying over spilt milk, eh? Errrmmm....Some of those I could source from that Murray Walker book...Sadly, that's the only book in my libruary (Spelt Wrong) that's past the 1997 season...Anyway, I'll have a good look around today...Once again sorry about the amount of POVs, that's the problem when you have me editing notable amounts of the article. Because thanks to my Asperger Syndrome, I can remember just about every fact about Hill, but sadly it means that a few (or a lot) of POVs like to sneack into the article...and a final point: At least we're not editing an article that's being vandalised :P (I'm gonna speak too soon aren't I?) --Skully Collins 06:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the article as a whole is very NPOV, just a few specific examples, and I'm not sure if those are yours or if they came from other contributors. (If you want to see really partisan stuff go and hang around Fernando Alonso and 'the Amazing adventure of Kimi Raikonnen' for a while! And for vandalism, come to think of it). I can knock the POVs on the head easily enough if you want. Cheers 4u1e
Well, I've had a look at the "astonishing career" of Michael Schumacher and I just couldn't beleive the amounts of POVS in just one part of the article...AND it was a nominated for FA...no wonder it didn't make it, eh? --Skully Collins 12:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

Need to keep an eye on article length now - I know 32kb isn't a hard limit, but it's a good 'style' guideline. The current version is 41kb. Cheers. 4u1e

Comparing the article to one of my friend's (Ataricodfish) article on Phil Collins, both are around the same lengh...Scroll bar wise anyway...plus that article has more pictures then this one :-D... --Skully Collins 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I Think It's Time To Have This Beauty Peer Reviewed, Yes? --Skully Collins 09:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. I've been away from home for a few days. Yeah - go for it! 4u1e

[edit] Copyedited

Copyedited, albeit rather quickly, as per request on GA nomination page. 4u1e 20 June

So the copyedit is done then? --Skully Collins 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying it's perfect, but I couldn't see any errors remaining. Experience says that as soon as you press 'save' some more errors will miraculously appear, though. I've dropped a note on the page of the guy who put the 'hold' on the GA nomination to suggest it could be lifted now. 4u1e
Well....we've (along with a few others) have done it :-) Yeah! --Skully Collins 06:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup - nice work! 4u1e 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date inconsistency

There's an inconsistency in the dates of Damon's motorcycle racing debut - it's 81 in the text and 83 in the lead. Could someone (that probably means you Mr Collins) check it out? It might also be an idea to check the dates of Damon's progression through F3 and F3000, I've reworded those bits to flow better, but I've probably made some assumptions about what happened in which year. Cheers. 4u1e 20 June

All checked...and for future conversations it's either "Phill" or "Skully". "Collins" is just the name of my favourite music artist ;) --Skully Collins 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Duly noted! Cheers. 4u1e

[edit] Father and Mother

Do we need to specify "Father Graham and mother Bette"? To a native english speaker this seems redundant, since both names are unambiguous in gender. I suppose this might not be the case for all readers, though. 4u1e 26 June 2006

Meh, you can get rid of it if you want, I just put it there because some wiki editors can be very piccy, can't they? --Skully Collins 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As can some contributors! (Looks guilty) I think given that Graham is reasonably well known and is wikilinked there's little chance of confusion and it does read better without, so I'll change it. 4u1e 20:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S. It's hard to get anyone to comment on this stuff isn't it!)

[edit] Should these bits be here?

  • Joshua's ski-ing. Notable enough? I removed this bit last night - broke the flow rather in that para. Cheers. 4u1e 27 June 2006
  • Brigitte's career. Notable enough, given that the article is not about her?
well, the fact of the matter is that the article needs to cover the entire topic...and I thought that meant just a brief mention...I guess it is information overkill as it were...so I guess they can be removed... --Skully Collins 12:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of F3 wins

I've cut this from the 'GA standard' discussion above, as it's getting confusing having this long line of reasoning in the middle of an older discussion. 4u1e

  • Damon's pre-F1 history as on the wikipedia page is different from that on another page listing his history.

http://www.caspoldermans.com/hill/damon-careerresults.html I don't know which is accurate. The wikipedia pages says that Hill won 10 F3 races, but the link given only shows four. There are also six race wins attributed to him in F3 on the Wikipedia page which are attributed to FF1600 on the link. Apologies if I have broken any Wikipedia social rules or conventions in adding this entry, but I thought it worth adding so that people more involved in the page can decide if any action is required.

Well the pre F1 results all come from here: [1]
Something's screwy - this link [2] says only three F3 wins. Perhaps non-championship races? Try [3] for another take on it. 4u1e 27 June 2006
I think the f1db figures are wrong. F3history.co.uk shows Damon with only 15 points for the 1986 season, so he can't have scored 6 wins, and he doesn't show up in the results for any of the other F3 championships listed for that year. 15 points also matches the results shown on the caspoldermans page for that year. Most likely the f1db site has accidentally copied the FFord win tally from the line above. There is also a discrepancy between the www.formula1.com Hall of Fame article (3 wins in three years) and the caspoldermans site (four wins in three years). 4u1e
Not having much luck yet, but as two of Damon's 1986 wins were at Zandvoort and Spa, it seems quite likely that one of those two races was not part of the UK championship - which would mean 3 UK championship wins, but four F3 wins in total. Just a theory at present, still looking for more data. 4u1e
The above is the best I can do at present - it seems certain at least that it is not 10 wins, so I'm plumping for four for now. Amending article accordingly. user:4u1e

[edit] Segrave Trophy

There's a category at the bottom for the Segrave Trophy, but this isn't mentioned (as far as I can tell) anywhere in the main body of the article. Should it be? TheGrappler 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Added. Cheerz. --Skully Collins 07:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Awards/Honours

IS there perhaps a need for an Awards/Honours section? To include OBE, Segrave Trophy, BBC Sports personality of the year and any others I may have missed. Just a thought. 4u1e

Well, all the awards are mentioned in the main body, but are not clearly stated If you know what I mean. But this means that the section could be small and list like... --Skully Collins 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm - true - maybe it's best as it is. I suppose there's not really enough there for a full section, which I have seen done for other articles. Thanks for the catch on Spain 94, my sense of historical inevitability running away with me again! 4u1e 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It's okay ;). Good thing we found it BEFORE the article appeared on the main page, eh? --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 09:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably for the best, yeah! Which doesn't mean that I won't be worrying about checking the rest of it. Again. <rolls eyes> 4u1e

[edit] Results table

I am adding a points coulmn and Championship standing column to the results table -aprithvi

Many thanks. 4u1e

[edit] Schumacher/Hill collision at Adelaide

At present we have two descriptions of this incident, one in the 1994 season summary and one under 'Notable battles'. After recent additions, both are now about the same length. They're actually pretty consistent, but there is no need for them both to be full descriptions.

Before I edit one of them down to a one line summary - which do we think should remain the more detailed version?

My inclination is to keep the more detailed version in the 1994 season summary - where it is a key point in the development of Hill's public image - and to edit down the one in 'Notable battles' to about the same length as the other incidents described there. Views? 4u1e 28 July 2006

Well, I guess your right, but let's not forget that there are people out there who think that Hill was in the wrong (although it was proven it he attempted to avoid the accident!)...so we got to try and watch our steps on the Adelaide incident --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll also keep it neutral - which I think the original version (in the 94 summary was). The new words (under notable battles) are less so, although there are a couple of details it may be worth transferring up to the 94 bit. 4u1e 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not exactly neutral anymore is it? I mean, all we have for Schu is Murray Walker's quote, while we have the BBC "Unsporting Incident" and the Patrick Head quote against him...But to be honest, there is no way we can find anything for Schu...because, not many people actually try and justify what Schumacher did...so maybe we should put a note, saying something along the lines of what I've just said into the article itself... --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 14:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks

Skully, you've added quite a lot of links to the 98 season that already appear further up in the article. Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context suggests that wikilinks should normally only be made at the first appearance of a word, although I personally make an exception for the appearance of words in the lead and in the main article. Are you sure the extras are necessary? 4u1e 02:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

as far as I'm aware...all of those wiki links are for Grand Prix articles, ie "Hockenheim" will go to the "1998 German Grand Prix"... --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of duplicate Arrows and Heinz-Harald Frentzens, which I assume were not intended. Cheers. 4u1e 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, what happend to it, it's in another language.

[edit] Notable battles with Michael Schumacher

Spa 1995: Surely MS only recieved a suspended ban? He didn't miss any races in 1995 --Don Speekingleesh 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you must be right - wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Anyone got the references to hand?

[edit] Factually acurate?

The article reads: "The son of the late, two time Formula One world champion Graham Hill, he is the only son of a world champion to win the title himself."

However, I seem to remember that Gilles Villeneuve was a world champion, and his son Jacques Villeneuve won the title a few years back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.167.216.28 (talk • contribs).

You remember incorrectly. Gilles never won a world title. Seb Patrick 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelaide '94: Schumacher's Car Damage

Main article: User:Skully Collins/Adelaide '94

Sorry, but if you keep reverting perfectly good edits to your edits which appear to say that the FIA did this report without even a reference then I'm afraid I can't accept that edit until I see hard evidence that Schumacher's car wasn't damaged, which is pretty hard itself because after his collision with Hill, his car was sent at least 5 feet into the air and landed on the two right wheels...the same wheels that hit the wall. So I seriously doubt that the FIA could even make a statement that the car was damaged on just video evidence, that's just unintelligent.

Also you've provided no reference to this report either, so all I can say is that your referring to a "Phantom Report", which is hardly appropriate. Also the report you referenced said that Schumacher knew his car was damaged. Look, why do so many F1 books and webistes (either British or Not) that have a report on the 1994 Australian Grand Prix always say that "Schumacher Damaged his car" or something along those lines prior to his collision with Hill?--Skully Collins 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism in the Michael_Schumacher talk page.

Someone mentioned on the Michael Schumacher talk page that "The entire article is nothing more than POV, fan-boyism, and complete fabrication of reality, only occcassional punctuated by a factual date or location." Why they've put this in the Michael Schumacher talk page I've no idea. They also seem very vulgar and uninterested in what people have to say in respones, so they might have been messing about. Buc 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/m/Talk%7EDamon_Hill_1ccc.html"