A fact from 2001 Belgian Grand Prix appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Luciano Burti's 111G crash at the 2001 Belgian Grand Prix led to a ban on creating holes in racing helmets for drinking tubes and radio communication wires?
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 Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
More than two laps were completed before Burti crashed, which normally means the race is restarted on aggregate - why did that not happen this time? And why are drivers who completed racing laps before Burti's crash recorded as Did Not Start?--MartinUK (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Article 158, Case B here then. The original distance was 44 laps, and with 5 laps covered: 44-5-3 = 36 laps. They are recorded as Did Not Start, as they didn't start the second race. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's correct to call it a DNS - it is a retirement, as Raikkonen/Alonso/Burti/Irvine all started the originally scheduled race distance. I think it's a function of the odd way in which race-stoppages were dealt with at the time, where they completely ignored the first part of the race other than to provide a grid line-up. The current system, where the race is restarted with the completed distance counted, is better. Mbdxecw2 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Räikkönen, Irvine, Burti and Alonso's results as recorded in this article have swapped between "Ret" and "DNS" several times. They were most recently changed to "DNS" back in 2017. For the time being, I've changed them back to "Ret", for consistency with the related articles (i.e. 2001 Formula One World Championship, Eddie Irvine, Fernando Alonso, etc) but I'm happy to have a discussion about whether they should be "Ret" or "DNS". As documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results:
FORIX (subscription site) lists them as "Not started"
Please leave them as DNS. We do not document results as we think they should have been. We document results as the officials with the authority of crediting the results did credit them. In this case, the table is supported by an FIA source (#4 The official FIA Lap Chart of the race) which very cleary states that the first part of the race was declared null and void. The contested drivers quite patently Did Not Start the only scored race. That the current system is better is simply irrelevant. The system in use at the time of the race is what matters and we reflect the results credited by the FIA themselves following that system.Tvx1 16:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the drivers' and constructors' articles accordingly.Tvx1 17:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
@Dawnseeker2000: Been two weeks since the review was opened and no comments have been left. What is the status of this review? MWright96(talk) 10:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just got back to work, so I've nothing to say on this one yet. To be even more clear: I am a person with highly-variable energy and when I took these three I was rather energetic. Not so much anymore. Please be patient, or you can request another reviewer. I won't mind. I didn't say I wasn't going to do it, but it will be a little bit. Dawnseeker2000 15:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking good. I'm slowly working my way through it and will mark it as GA when complete. Dawnseeker2000 22:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No sense in delaying this any further. It easily meets and exceeds the GA criteria. I'll go ahead and pass it, then continue the minor copy editing. Very nice article. Dawnseeker2000 12:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that unlike first-lap restarts in that era, which are completely null and void, because the race order decided the grid for the restart then there has been an element of it that is carried forward, and therefore cannot be considered fully "nullified". So I was attempting to change the wording to something less contentious, as I did a few months ago for one of the headings (from "nullified race" to "first start"). It's important for me a distinction is made between that and first-lappers. But would be interested to hear @DH85868993:'s take. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spa-Franks: That's a fair point about the race order deciding the grid for the restart. How about something like this: "[According to series regulations,] the results of the first start were declared void, with the restart to be considered as the entire race. The starting order for the restart was determined from the finishing order of the first four laps, with a revised distance of 36 laps and a reduced field of 18 cars." Feel free to tweak the wording. DH85868993 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DH85868993: Have gone for "According to series regulations, the first four laps were not counted towards the restarted race, the only retained element being the order the cars were in after the end of lap four,[ref] revising the distance to 36 laps and reducing the field to 18 cars.[ref]" Spa-Franks (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
