Front page article review thread

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
User avatar
PlatinumZealot
413
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Front page article review thread

Post

Can this be a place where we critique the front page articles of f1 technical? There is no outlet (comments) section under the articles,which means quick feedback is not available. Not that I have a problem with there not being a comments section; commentators can be an unruly bunch at times! So I can understand why one was not put there.

Anyway. I am no English teacher or journalist, but I have a gripe with this article in particular.

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21896

It is obviously an opinionated article, and highly biased I might add! I mean, these sorts of articles are normal but, to be frank, this disingenuous wall of text should never have made its away to the head line of the front page. Never. It should be put to an "opinon" section off to the side.

It is a long article. Seemingly well thought out from first glance.. but upon reading it It's a weak attempt to undermine the hard fought battle between these two champions to make it seems as if the victor had it easy. There was little effort spent in gathering facts, little effort spent in analysis too. It was just poor journalism.

A proper "Congratulations" article should have been posted on the front page. I think it's just proper journalistic etiquette! I am not good at articulating my thoughts in words (and I am a native English speaker too! Sad. I know!) but I know drivel when I see it!
===================✯✯
============✯✯
====✯✯
LH44

User avatar
Vyssion
305
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:46 pm
Can this be a place where we critique the front page articles of f1 technical? There is no outlet (comments) section under the articles,which means quick feedback is not available. Not that I have a problem with there not being a comments section; commentators can be an unruly bunch at times! So I can understand why one was not put there.

Anyway. I am no English teacher or journalist, but I have a gripe with this article in particular.

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21896
Okay, I'll bite...

I would be interested in hearing the specific "gripes" which you have with the article... your post appears to make a few claims about the writings, however, I am unsure to which section(s) you are referring to? I mean... after all...
PlatinumZealot wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:46 pm
..but I know drivel when I see it!
As for whether it is opinionated, it went through 3-4 of us writers before getting the go ahead for publication; we all saw this article as purely a "present the facts as to why Hamilton won", and we did all feel that it managed that action quite well. Some races, were indeed handed to him whilst others were fought for.

Regarding the "congratulatory" articles that should have been written for Hamiltons win? There were two actually; here are the links:

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21898

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21895
"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman the Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"

#aerosaruman

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

I don't see the issue either. The article has been written in a very objective fashion. PlatinumZealot is calling it "highly biased" but does not give any specific example. Neither do I see any attempt to undermine the extent and difficulty of the battle. Infact before the summer break it did show several "swing moments" which for me emphasized the intensity of the WDC battle (Spain, Canada, France, Asutria,...). The second half is where the article correctly reflects the WDC battle detoriated.

Hamilton did a very good job getting the WDC in; Vettel made it him especially hard in the first half of the season. The article was not written to congratulate or pat Hamilton or Vettel on the back. It's an analysis and chronological order of how the season progressed. As Vyssion mentioned, there are enough articles where we praise Hamilton and Vettel.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
413
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

Vyssion wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:20 pm


Regarding the "congratulatory" articles that should have been written for Hamiltons win? There were two actually; here are the links:

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21898

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21895
Hmph... I was expecting something like this:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... d-champion
===================✯✯
============✯✯
====✯✯
LH44

User avatar
Steven
Owner
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 5:32 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:22 pm
Vyssion wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:20 pm


Regarding the "congratulatory" articles that should have been written for Hamiltons win? There were two actually; here are the links:

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21898

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21895
Hmph... I was expecting something like this:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... d-champion
Mr. Platinum Zealot,

If you have spare time, feel free to enlist yourself, and write something. Editing will happen like all articles that are published. Nobody here is a paid journalist, so we write as much as is possible in our available times, and sometimes, that means we're having to leave out articles you want to see.

On the other hand, posting a few clips is actually easier than the season overview that was made, so I find the critics unjust. I'd like to know which part of the article you find biased, and why.

User avatar
Vyssion
305
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:22 pm
Vyssion wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:20 pm
Regarding the "congratulatory" articles that should have been written for Hamiltons win? There were two actually; here are the links:

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21898

https://www.f1technical.net/news/21895
Hmph... I was expecting something like this:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... d-champion
We are a technical site; as it reads in the title itself. We try to focus more on the "how" and "why" of technical things, rather than write in a sensationalist manner designed to increase click rates.

Either way, it looks like you managed to get your dose of Hamilton worship regardless, and given that you seem to overlooked my comments on wanting you to substantiate your claims that we wrote a "biased" article, I'll assume there was none to begin with.
"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman the Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"

#aerosaruman

User avatar
strad
265
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

I'd like to know which part of the article you find biased, and why.
.
I would too. I'm fairly sensitive to bias and I don't see a problem.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

Just for the record, critizicism is of course allowed. We are always open for improving ourselves. However, the other side of the coin is that the critizicism actually has to be correct and has to be specific. Just calling an article "biased" and "expecting something more like skysport" will not give us anything to work with and will only lead to irritation because at this point it has been nothing more than negativity.

So PlatinumZealot, I also would like to know what specifically is bugging you about the article. Everty
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
413
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

I respect the effort taken to write the article. I respect good work in general. Kudos. But i get a sense that the Author did not explore the dynamics at play here..... It felt more like a report (a slightly biased one) more than anything.

Here goes...
Article in quotes...
The 2018 championship battle has been characterised by mistakes from both the Mercedes and Ferrari teams
As a Mercedes bandwagonist I can hardly remember any Mercedes mistakes. The one i faintly remember was probably poor Virtual safety car pitstop call in the first race? It is wifely accepted that the season has been characterized by Ferrari amd Vettel mistakes more than anything.


Season summary
Sebastian Vettel has arguably been placed in positions of having to recover from a team mistake more often than Lewis Hamilton, and at more critical points of the season, which has led to some incidents which could be described as driver error.
Here Ferrari takes the heat as Vettel is kindly excused. No highlights on his cracked armour or psychological defeat Or how he lost in the faster car. On the flip side Hamilton's performance was lumped up into a simple "imperous" in the summary. Yeah he was peerless.. Could be emphasised more.

Spain
The Spanish GP was the first event in 2018 where Pirelli brought the thinner gauge tyres, requested by Mercedes after pre-season testing


Pretty sure it was agreed by all Teams!


british
After the race Hamilton again flirted with the controversy which has followed his career by insinuating the Ferrari's were deliberately causing accidents with the Mercedes' drivers, a claim firmly refuted by Ferrari.
What does mentioning this have to do with how the championship was won?! Lol (British GP) and not the use of "Again". Again from when? 😒

Germany
Vettel then slipped off the road from the lead, crashing out of the race, his first and only DNF so far in 2018. Hamilton produced another of his sublime wet weather drives to win, but only after managing to escape punishment for cutting the final corner from the pit entry following some confusion between himself and his race-engineer as to whether or not to box.
Can't let the guy have his day huh... What corner cutting? Ha. This insinuates something worse (cheating) than what actually happened.


hungary
For the hungary race.. It doesn't even mention the sublime Qualifying Hamilton produced.. A lot of lines were spent on Bottas' wingman duties blocking Vettel.

belgium
Author said "7 points were lost" by Hamilton. That Ferrari was UNASSAILABLE in that race!

Italy
Raikkonen benefited from a tow from Vettel to take pole. This decision left Vettel vulnerable to Hamilton from the start, and the Brit duly passed the Ferrari into the second chicane.
No it did not! Vettel became vulnerable because he was too greedy setting up his car to pass Raikkonen after the chicane. Hamilton could have easily been blocked off but he saw the poor defending line vettel took and the rest was history!

Singapore
Hamilton was dominant in Singapore, the only driver remotely close on pace was Verstappen, while Vettel could only manage P3, nearly 40s behind the race winning Brit.
Again the brilliance of Hamilton is brushed aside. No mention of one of the greatest pole laps of all time!


Japan
Ferrari made yet another error, this time in qualifying, by sending both drivers out at the start of Q3 on intermediate tyres. For the first flying laps slicks prove to be the faster tyre and Vettel can only manage P9, after making a mistake on an increasingly greasy track having pitted for slicks
Not entirely true. Vettel had a lap to set his fastest time on similar conditions to the drivers in front. His urgency lead to a mistake on that lap was what cost him.

Mercedes then made a mistake, calling Hamilton to the pits during an early virtual safety car period, and the blistering on the Mercedes meant Hamilton had to stop again, losing ground to Verstappen who finished second behind Raikkonen - a popular race win for F1's elder-statesman.
Mercedes didn't make a mistake though. They really had to pit when u watch their strategy review.

Anyway in the conclusion.. All he mentioned was the "state of flux" of comptitiveness between Ferrari and Mercedes and the two tier formula 1. How dry. Does it address how Hamilton won the championship? Not all at all. No mention of Hamilton clearly reinforcing for a second year in a row that he is well and truly a class above his rival and how he has come to be a true great of the sport.

I need to call in Mark Hughes in this place. His technical articles have dubious credibility but he's wonderful at writing driver stories.
===================✯✯
============✯✯
====✯✯
LH44

User avatar
jjn9128
290
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

Hi Platinum, I appreciate the feedback. As you mention this was indeed a report of the events which transpired through the season - Turbo and Vyssion have already pointed out there were other articles which took a different tack to surmising Hamilton winning the championship. As you pointed out in your original post this was a wall of text - some events had to be quickly skimmed to prevent it becoming overly drawn out.

I'm not going to go through each point but I would point out I am a fan of neither Vettel or Hamilton - and was very careful to try and avoid any bias - asking fans of both to read the article before we posted. It seems the major issue you have is that I tend to be very dry and analytical in my language, which I am afraid is not going to change.

Any comment on Vettel's mental state would be conjecture and inherently biased. On Hamilton and controversy - it was another major talking point from the season - in the past he got involved with Alonso in Hungary 2007, posted Button's telemetry to social media, got into a series of tangles with Massa, claimed his mechanics were deliberately sabotaging his car, and just this week he made a comment about India which he had to backtrack on. There are more but I can't recall off the top of my head. These can be substantiated.

Again thank you for the feedback, sorry the article wasn't for you. I'm afraid I wouldn't have felt any need to reply if you hadn't accused me of bias which having read your issues seems to be more your problem than mine. Hopefully future articles will be more your cup of tea.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

PZ,

everything you highlighted is basically said in the article, except you want to shift the focus from threating Vettel and Hamilton as equals to Hamilton being the hero and Vettel as the anti-hero. The article has been meticulously written so it doesn't offend anyone while staying objective. Everything discussed in the article has been covered as well by most if not all the other news outlets. You are also making an issue about how certain things are written, like the 7 points lossed in Belgium. There's nothing wrong with that line, especially you ripped it out of the whole paragraph underlining that Ferrari was "unassailable" that weekend:
Ferrari returned from the summer break having seemingly made strides over Mercedes on their power unit. A wet-dry qualifying saw Hamilton on pole, but Vettel was able to out-drag the Mercedes out of Radillon and into Les Combes from the start. Even after a safety car caused by Hulkenburg piling into Alonso and Leclerc at turn 1, Hamilton was unable to get a run on Vettel as he did in 2017 and eventually turned down the engine to settle for 2nd place, losing 7 points in the championship.
Here Ferrari takes the heat as Vettel is kindly excused. No highlights on his cracked armour or psychological defeat Or how he lost in the faster car. On the flip side Hamilton's performance was lumped up into a simple "imperous" in the summary. Yeah he was peerless.. Could be emphasised more.
Seriously? Well ok, here you go:

Image

(sorry, couldn't resist)
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
strad
265
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

PlatinumZealot: You're kidding right? Way too much fanboyism from your side. I don't think the article was overly biased either way.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
mertol
22
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:02 am

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

The mistakes were mainly from Vettel. Ferrari didn't do as big or nearly as many mistakes. I don't see how stating the truth would make him the anti-hero.

User avatar
strad
265
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

seems to be more your problem than mine.
Spot on jjn
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
413
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Front page article review thread

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:40 am

Again thank you for the feedback,sorry the article wasn't for you. I'm afraid I wouldn't have felt any need to reply if you hadn't accused me of bias which having read your issues seems to be more your problem than mine. Hopefully future articles will be more your cup of tea.
No need to apologize my man. We readers will always "attack" and "raise the alarms" if the first sentence does rub us the right way. Nothing deliberate or deep seated, sometimes it is "heat of the moment" after clicking on the article.
===================✯✯
============✯✯
====✯✯
LH44