 | 2009 Australian Grand Prix was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 4, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Brawn GP's one-two finish at the
2009 Australian Grand Prix made it the first
Formula One team to do so on debut at a
Grand Prix since 1954? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
In the 23 previous years... LXXIV ING Australian Grand Prix... anyone planning to explain this contradiction? -- Falcadore ( talk) 09:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. In the third year (III) you'd say "in the previous two years", because there were two years before. In the 24th year (LXXIV), there were 23 previous GPs, so you talk about the previous 23 years. I think.
Aptery
gial 10:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Er, no: LXXIV = 74th, not 24th. I think it was supposed to be a reference to the time during which the Australian Grand Prix has been part of the World Championship, in which case it should have been 24 previous years (1985-2008). But I've removed the whole paragraph, because it was just WDC-centric filler which would be removed anyway once the race has been run. If people want to see how many times various teams/drivers have won the Australian Grand Prix, they can go to the Australian Grand Prix article. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The "missing 50 years" are due to the long history of the Australian Grand Prix prior to it being part of the Formula One World Championship. Mark Hurd ( talk) 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The cars running KERS have been marked in green in the results table. Did I miss where this was discussed, and do we think this is a good idea? I'm not hugely behind it, I think as soon as you start doing this you may as well mark down what compound slick each car is using, if we are going to be classing the cars so obviously. Aptery gial 09:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it maybe a pretty useful guide seeing as KERS can make a difference.
D.M.N. (
talk) 09:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Marking KERS is useful, but I feel we should come up with a better legend. The green color for the font is distracting.
Leave
Sleaves 10:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not to sound overly critical, I feel like a legend such as "†" or "♠" should be superscribed on the car numbers. Because it's the cars that are KERSed, not the drivers. Leave Sleaves 11:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Marking KERS is useful, but I feel we should come up with a better legend. The green color for the font is distracting.
Leave
Sleaves 10:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
| Pos | No | Name | Constructor | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22 |
 Driver 1
|
Team without KERS | 1:25.211 | 1:24.855 | 1:26.202 | 1 |
| 2 | 23 |
 Driver 2
|
Team with KERS on one car, running KERS ‡ | 1:25.006 | 1:24.783 | 1:26.505 | 2 |
| 3 | 15 |
 Driver 3
|
Team with KERS ‡ | 1:25.938 | 1:25.121 | 1:26.830 | 3 |
| 4 | 5 |
 Driver 4
|
Team with KERS on one car, not running KERS | 1:25.922 | 1:25.152 | 1:26.914 | 4 |
Something like that. Mjroots ( talk) 11:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What does Both of them had the heavier cars in Q3 mean, when referring to Button and Barrichello? Heavier than what? There's a reference so I didn't take it out, but it needs to make sense. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Brawns were running heavier cars than Kubica or Vettel, and I think in the top ten only Glock had a heavier car (now of course, he's at the back of the grid). Should read something like Both cars were heavier in the third session than their rivals, or words to that effect.
Aptery
gial 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah OK, but what's the point of it? Without knowing why they were heavier than some of their rivals, or whether they were also heavier in Q1 and Q2 or not, it's pointless.
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it would certainly relate to fuel. The weight of every car sans driver, to my understanding, is identical, so the weights published by the FIA are an indication of fuel loads. I wouldn't, therefore, have thought the weights of the cars in Q1 or Q2 would matter in any way.
Aptery
gial 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The minimum weight for a Formula 1 car is 605kg (measured avec driver but sans fuel). All teams' cars weigh under the limit, and then ballast is added to make up the difference - every car will usually weight just over 605kg (basically all car/driver combinations on the grid are pretty much the same weight). Anything on top of the 605kg therefore is fuel and the differences in weight will be down to the differing amounts of fuel being carried.
- Well, it would certainly relate to fuel. The weight of every car sans driver, to my understanding, is identical, so the weights published by the FIA are an indication of fuel loads. I wouldn't, therefore, have thought the weights of the cars in Q1 or Q2 would matter in any way.
Aptery
gial 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah OK, but what's the point of it? Without knowing why they were heavier than some of their rivals, or whether they were also heavier in Q1 and Q2 or not, it's pointless.
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Q1 and Q2 are carried out with low-fuel levels (usually just enough for out-lap,hot-lap (or two) and an in-lap). Q3 sees the drivers carrying the fuel used for the race so the differences in weight in Q3 allow us to know the differences in fuel being carried for the start of the race (and hence how long it is until the first pit-stop). A lighter car may be faster in Q3 (advantage, get further towards the front of the grid) but will obviously need to stop earlier in the race (disadvantage, as the cars are less spread out earlier on, so more places will be lost in the same amount of time). AlexJ ( talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain the point in only showing a part table for drivers and constructors? Might as well not have the section if the full table isn't shown. Mjroots ( talk) 09:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that the race order still need to determine (except Trulli who intend to appeal) after the protest of several teams to Toyota, Williams and Brawn? That 3 teams will be receive no points should the verdict against them On April 14? -- Aleen f1 11:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional images now available at commons. As a sidenote, do not use File:Buemi 2009 Australian GP 1.jpg. The file was incorrectly named and would be deleted. Leave Sleaves 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The lead states that this was the first to finish under safety car conditions. However, the safety car actually pulled off before the end of the race and it was actually completed under green flag.-- FimusTauri ( talk) 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- But safety car conditions still applied up until the chequered flag, as the cars weren't allowed to overtake each other.--
Diniz
(talk) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Its just that, on the BBC coverage, I remember Martin Brundle saying that the safety car was coming in and the race would be finished under green flag conditions.--
FimusTauri (
talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The 1999 Canadian Grand Prix ended similarly to this race with the safety car pitting before the final lap was complete. It is mentioned in Article 40.14 of the Sporting Regulations stating: If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed it will enter the pit lane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking. Cs-wolves (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Its just that, on the BBC coverage, I remember Martin Brundle saying that the safety car was coming in and the race would be finished under green flag conditions.--
FimusTauri (
talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why most of the images used in the article are set to 200 pixels wide? The MoS specifies that, in normal circumstances, forcing a particular image width should not be used.-- Diniz (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there was a reason I can't see it. I removed the image forcers. Aptery gial 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This looks like it could run and run [1] - do we want to update the article or wait till it's resolved? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think Hamilton's meeting with the stewards is Thursday (which it already is in Malaysia). There'll probably be a decision made within the next 12-24 hours I'd guess, so waiting until then wouldn't do any undue harm I suppose. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe some information needs to be added to the background section about the time change of the grand prix and the rejected proposal of night race. Here are a few links for those interested in incorporating the information: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Leave Sleaves 18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've incorporated some of it in, but I know that it can be worked upon. Cs-wolves (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The articles I have read regarding the end result of the Trulli-Hamilton incident have stated that both Mclaren's were disqualified as a result of what happened with the stewards. Should Kovalainen not be listed as DSQ instead of "Collision" as a result? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Both formula1.com and autosport still list Kovalainen as retired on lap 1, so until one or both of those, or another decent results source change it, we should probably leave it as 'retired'.
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the clarification. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Australian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am quick failing this nomination as the nomination itself is disputed on the talk page, the nominator is attempting to carry out the review and quick fail criterion #5 cites "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." Basically let all the controversy die down, and then establish the facts. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The decision to nominate for GA, taken seemingly unilaterally without consultation of the main writer, is a poor and premature one. Ignoring for a start the malformed nomination page (which should only be created by the reviewer at the beginning of the review), the article will surely fail the stability criterion, as the McLaren controversy does not appear to be over. Not to detract from Cs-wolves' writing, a thorough copyedit is in order, possibly by a few editors, which I will contribute to. I also feel the Race section is far too long and detailed, and needs to be reduced. If it were up to me, I would withdraw the nomination, pending these necessary changes. Since it is not, be glad there is currently a large backlog at GAN, and let's resolve to spend the time we do have avoiding what could be a disastrous review. Aptery gial 12:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2009 Australian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120216230452/http://www.manipef1.com/results/2009/australia/race/leaders/ to http://www.manipef1.com/results/2009/australia/race/leaders/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090401074235/http://formula-one.speedtv.com:80/article/f1-toyota-lodge-trulli-penalty-appeal to http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-toyota-lodge-trulli-penalty-appeal/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- B-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- B-Class Australian motorsport articles
- High-importance Australian motorsport articles
- WikiProject Australian motorsport articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class Formula One articles
- Mid-importance Formula One articles
|
| 2009 Australian Grand Prix was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
| A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 4, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Brawn GP's one-two finish at the
2009 Australian Grand Prix made it the first
Formula One team to do so on debut at a
Grand Prix since 1954? | |||||||||
|
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the 23 previous years... LXXIV ING Australian Grand Prix... anyone planning to explain this contradiction? -- Falcadore ( talk) 09:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. In the third year (III) you'd say "in the previous two years", because there were two years before. In the 24th year (LXXIV), there were 23 previous GPs, so you talk about the previous 23 years. I think.
Aptery
gial 10:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Er, no: LXXIV = 74th, not 24th. I think it was supposed to be a reference to the time during which the Australian Grand Prix has been part of the World Championship, in which case it should have been 24 previous years (1985-2008). But I've removed the whole paragraph, because it was just WDC-centric filler which would be removed anyway once the race has been run. If people want to see how many times various teams/drivers have won the Australian Grand Prix, they can go to the Australian Grand Prix article. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The "missing 50 years" are due to the long history of the Australian Grand Prix prior to it being part of the Formula One World Championship. Mark Hurd ( talk) 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The cars running KERS have been marked in green in the results table. Did I miss where this was discussed, and do we think this is a good idea? I'm not hugely behind it, I think as soon as you start doing this you may as well mark down what compound slick each car is using, if we are going to be classing the cars so obviously. Aptery gial 09:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it maybe a pretty useful guide seeing as KERS can make a difference.
D.M.N. (
talk) 09:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Marking KERS is useful, but I feel we should come up with a better legend. The green color for the font is distracting.
Leave
Sleaves 10:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not to sound overly critical, I feel like a legend such as "†" or "♠" should be superscribed on the car numbers. Because it's the cars that are KERSed, not the drivers. Leave Sleaves 11:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Marking KERS is useful, but I feel we should come up with a better legend. The green color for the font is distracting.
Leave
Sleaves 10:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
| Pos | No | Name | Constructor | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22 |
Driver 1
|
Team without KERS | 1:25.211 | 1:24.855 | 1:26.202 | 1 |
| 2 | 23 |
Driver 2
|
Team with KERS on one car, running KERS ‡ | 1:25.006 | 1:24.783 | 1:26.505 | 2 |
| 3 | 15 |
Driver 3
|
Team with KERS ‡ | 1:25.938 | 1:25.121 | 1:26.830 | 3 |
| 4 | 5 |
Driver 4
|
Team with KERS on one car, not running KERS | 1:25.922 | 1:25.152 | 1:26.914 | 4 |
Something like that. Mjroots ( talk) 11:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What does Both of them had the heavier cars in Q3 mean, when referring to Button and Barrichello? Heavier than what? There's a reference so I didn't take it out, but it needs to make sense. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Brawns were running heavier cars than Kubica or Vettel, and I think in the top ten only Glock had a heavier car (now of course, he's at the back of the grid). Should read something like Both cars were heavier in the third session than their rivals, or words to that effect.
Aptery
gial 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah OK, but what's the point of it? Without knowing why they were heavier than some of their rivals, or whether they were also heavier in Q1 and Q2 or not, it's pointless.
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it would certainly relate to fuel. The weight of every car sans driver, to my understanding, is identical, so the weights published by the FIA are an indication of fuel loads. I wouldn't, therefore, have thought the weights of the cars in Q1 or Q2 would matter in any way.
Aptery
gial 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The minimum weight for a Formula 1 car is 605kg (measured avec driver but sans fuel). All teams' cars weigh under the limit, and then ballast is added to make up the difference - every car will usually weight just over 605kg (basically all car/driver combinations on the grid are pretty much the same weight). Anything on top of the 605kg therefore is fuel and the differences in weight will be down to the differing amounts of fuel being carried.
- Well, it would certainly relate to fuel. The weight of every car sans driver, to my understanding, is identical, so the weights published by the FIA are an indication of fuel loads. I wouldn't, therefore, have thought the weights of the cars in Q1 or Q2 would matter in any way.
Aptery
gial 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah OK, but what's the point of it? Without knowing why they were heavier than some of their rivals, or whether they were also heavier in Q1 and Q2 or not, it's pointless.
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Q1 and Q2 are carried out with low-fuel levels (usually just enough for out-lap,hot-lap (or two) and an in-lap). Q3 sees the drivers carrying the fuel used for the race so the differences in weight in Q3 allow us to know the differences in fuel being carried for the start of the race (and hence how long it is until the first pit-stop). A lighter car may be faster in Q3 (advantage, get further towards the front of the grid) but will obviously need to stop earlier in the race (disadvantage, as the cars are less spread out earlier on, so more places will be lost in the same amount of time). AlexJ ( talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain the point in only showing a part table for drivers and constructors? Might as well not have the section if the full table isn't shown. Mjroots ( talk) 09:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that the race order still need to determine (except Trulli who intend to appeal) after the protest of several teams to Toyota, Williams and Brawn? That 3 teams will be receive no points should the verdict against them On April 14? -- Aleen f1 11:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional images now available at commons. As a sidenote, do not use File:Buemi 2009 Australian GP 1.jpg. The file was incorrectly named and would be deleted. Leave Sleaves 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The lead states that this was the first to finish under safety car conditions. However, the safety car actually pulled off before the end of the race and it was actually completed under green flag.-- FimusTauri ( talk) 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- But safety car conditions still applied up until the chequered flag, as the cars weren't allowed to overtake each other.--
Diniz
(talk) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Its just that, on the BBC coverage, I remember Martin Brundle saying that the safety car was coming in and the race would be finished under green flag conditions.--
FimusTauri (
talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The 1999 Canadian Grand Prix ended similarly to this race with the safety car pitting before the final lap was complete. It is mentioned in Article 40.14 of the Sporting Regulations stating: If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed it will enter the pit lane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking. Cs-wolves (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Its just that, on the BBC coverage, I remember Martin Brundle saying that the safety car was coming in and the race would be finished under green flag conditions.--
FimusTauri (
talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why most of the images used in the article are set to 200 pixels wide? The MoS specifies that, in normal circumstances, forcing a particular image width should not be used.-- Diniz (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there was a reason I can't see it. I removed the image forcers. Aptery gial 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This looks like it could run and run [1] - do we want to update the article or wait till it's resolved? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think Hamilton's meeting with the stewards is Thursday (which it already is in Malaysia). There'll probably be a decision made within the next 12-24 hours I'd guess, so waiting until then wouldn't do any undue harm I suppose. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe some information needs to be added to the background section about the time change of the grand prix and the rejected proposal of night race. Here are a few links for those interested in incorporating the information: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Leave Sleaves 18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've incorporated some of it in, but I know that it can be worked upon. Cs-wolves (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The articles I have read regarding the end result of the Trulli-Hamilton incident have stated that both Mclaren's were disqualified as a result of what happened with the stewards. Should Kovalainen not be listed as DSQ instead of "Collision" as a result? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Both formula1.com and autosport still list Kovalainen as retired on lap 1, so until one or both of those, or another decent results source change it, we should probably leave it as 'retired'.
Bretonbanquet (
talk) 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the clarification. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Australian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am quick failing this nomination as the nomination itself is disputed on the talk page, the nominator is attempting to carry out the review and quick fail criterion #5 cites "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." Basically let all the controversy die down, and then establish the facts. Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The decision to nominate for GA, taken seemingly unilaterally without consultation of the main writer, is a poor and premature one. Ignoring for a start the malformed nomination page (which should only be created by the reviewer at the beginning of the review), the article will surely fail the stability criterion, as the McLaren controversy does not appear to be over. Not to detract from Cs-wolves' writing, a thorough copyedit is in order, possibly by a few editors, which I will contribute to. I also feel the Race section is far too long and detailed, and needs to be reduced. If it were up to me, I would withdraw the nomination, pending these necessary changes. Since it is not, be glad there is currently a large backlog at GAN, and let's resolve to spend the time we do have avoiding what could be a disastrous review. Aptery gial 12:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2009 Australian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120216230452/http://www.manipef1.com/results/2009/australia/race/leaders/ to http://www.manipef1.com/results/2009/australia/race/leaders/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090401074235/http://formula-one.speedtv.com:80/article/f1-toyota-lodge-trulli-penalty-appeal to http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-toyota-lodge-trulli-penalty-appeal/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- B-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- B-Class Australian motorsport articles
- High-importance Australian motorsport articles
- WikiProject Australian motorsport articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class Formula One articles
- Mid-importance Formula One articles