Jump to content

Talk:2004 Australian Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race report

[edit]

Hello everyone, I'm just letting you all know that I'm starting to fill in missing race reports in articles starting from all the Grands Prix I've watched in real-life - that's every race since this one. So, I'll start with this one. Lradrama 09:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filled in the race report & added the infobox. Lradrama 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did some references a few days ago. More might be needed. In time, to make it a really good article, maybe adding a more detailed section on qualifying would help, but for now, my next task is Malaysia 2004. :-) Lradrama 11:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I get time, I'll carry on this work. Next up is Sepang '04. Orphan Wiki 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

SSSB, with all due respect, how can you keep the rest of the hidden note but not Leclerc?1 It is cited to StatsF1, so we either remove the whole note, or we add Leclerc. Wanna know what is a real trivia? That Leclerc is the first driver since like Fittipaldi in the 1970s to achieve a fastest lap in the first three races of the season? The fact that Leclerc had a grand slam and dominant win at the same Grand Prix 18 years later, which was Ferrari's last grand slam at the Grand Prix until 2022 (you did not have any problem with a hidden note detailing the trivia that Ferrari had a team grand slam at Bharain, and even thanked me for it) is made due by the fact it is sourced to a RaceFans article2 (it is irrelevant that it is just mentioned, since we are talking about a footnote here, e.g. giving the same weight the source gave to it, because the point of the article is Schumacher 2004–Leclerc 2022 comparison at the same Grand Prix, i.e. dominating by achieving a grand slam) and not just to StatsF1. If this is fine, I fail to see how this is somehow trivia given Schumacher–Leclerc dominance at the circuit 18 years apart. Please, cite an actual policy and guideline that is violated by mention this in a footnote? WP:WEIGHT? We are not giving any more weight than the source gives it. Davide King (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we determine whether something is trivia or not? If a statistic gets published by a reliable source, it is a start. The test should be that if something can only be sourced to StatsF1, it is likely trivia. This does not appear to be the case here, irregardless of you personally not seeing the relevance — a reliable source clearly did and wrote an article about the dominance comparison between the two, which should be enough for a footnote. Davide King (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I am perfectly happy for you to remove the rest of the note. In fact, now I read the note in it's entirety, I should have removed everything except that it was a Grand Slam (GS) for Schumacher.
  2. (I know I'm not awnswering in order, but this is relevant to my later comments within this reply). One of the key criteria of what does/doesn't constitute trivia is prevalence among sources. Multiple sources bring it up when a driver scores a Grand Slam (which makes it notable here, even if no sources can be found which picked it up at the time), several sources brought up this is the first time since 2008. This is the first time I've ever seen "first for [team] at [venue]", if only one source has ever picked up on such an achievement, it is likely trivia. I mentioned team Grand Slam as clarification, as previous editors had put "first Ferrari GS", which is technically incorrect. You notice that it isn't in 2022 Bahrain Grand Prix (where it is most relevant), because I don't consider such a stat as passing the "trivia threshold".
  3. My response to:If this is fine - that is less specific. The last time a team scored a GS is not the same as the last time a team scored a GS at a specific venue. That edit was also me making a correction.
  4. The policy I feel is violated is WP:NOSTAT. Namely, "excessive listing of unexplained statistic". I also feel we give it undue weight. I would argue that mentioning this in the way we are suggests that 18 years between these two grand slams at one venue is somehow a long time, which it isn't (when you consider how rare a GS is. In fact, statistically, one every 18 years for one constructor at one venue is actually an impressive achievement (given how rare they are in general).
  5. In hindsight maybe having it in the footnote is an acceptable compromise, even if I don't agree with it's inclusion. (the same could work at 2022 Australian Grand Prix).
  6. Of course, the "trivia threshold" is relative. Undoubtedly there are cases where I have added something you would deem too trivial. I generally try to think "would a general reader find this interesting". Personally, I think that "the last time [team] was this dominant at [venue] was in [year x]" to be well below that threshold.
SSSB (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SSSB — first of all, sorry if I may have sounded harsh and thank you for the response, and I appreciate the way you formatted it. I will try to keep it short (I think I failed) because I do agree with you on many points and do not necessarily disagree on many others.
  1. I think that we can agree on criteria to what is trivia and what is not; I know that what I added is not a "first time" thing but at the same time I did not felt it was simply "2004 was the last time any team achieved a grand slam at the Australian Grand Prix" but rather "the last time a team achieved a grand slam at the Australia Grand Prix was Ferrari's Schumacher and both 2022 Leclerc and Ferrari's performance(s) reminded that dominance", which in my view made it a little bit more due and noteworthy otherwhise at least as a footnote like the other ones.
  2. I have to agree that we need multiple reliable sources reporting something like this, and that is precisely why I avoided writing a full sentence about it and use a footnote instead. Again, I think the wording is very good — Michael Schumacher won the race for Ferrari from pole position in dominant fashion, with the footnote explaining why (e.g. achieving the grand slam), and adding for good measure the 2004–2022 comparison, which also happen to be the first time any team achieved a grand slam at the same Grand Prix since then. I do not think I am going to re-add it in the short term because it is not a big deal to me, but if you are fine with a footnote, I would be happy if you re-add it as a compromise.
On another yet somewhat related (e.g. footnotes) topic, may I ask you why you, respectively, removed the footnote and mention about tyres' temperature and DRS not available under rain condiction?1 I kept your edit summary in mind and I thought that this grand slam statistic was something only racing fans would know or care about, so why not explaining or clarifying in a footnote for novices about the new 2022 tyres' temperature rules and DRS/rain, both of which were mentioned in the Motorsport.com report I relied for? Other reports mentioned the DRS rules. Again, not a big deal and I do not think I am going to re-add them in the short term, but if you were to improve that (e.g. also putting the DRS rules in a footnote), it would be good. Thank you very much for your contributions. Davide King (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Davide King: putting "the last time a team achieved a grand slam at the Australia Grand Prix was Ferrari's Schumacher and both 2022 Leclerc and Ferrari's performance(s) reminded that dominance" is perfect, because it deals with the issue I raised about WP:NOSTAT, unfortantly Leclerc's performance isn't relevant here.

I removed the comment about tyre temperatures because there is no evidence that they tyre temperature rules are to blame. The tyres may still have been too cold last year. At best, this was Kew's theory (I admit, I missed it was in the source, I thought it was WP:OR on your part, though I didn't know it was you at the time). Re-add it if you want, but it should be made clear that this is a hypothesis.

I removed the DRS sentence because it read clumsy, and we had already made clear all drivers were on dry tyres, and the rewording meant that we clarified that it was activited on lap 35 (and therefore not active before) reading it again, it may benefit from an explanation about DRS rules? SSSB (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that is no different from the last time a Ferrari driver achieved a grand slam, or the last time Ferrari achieved a grand slam as a team "... the first since the 2008 French Grand Prix (both achieved across two drivers)", which is fine by me, but unlike this it would be just a footnote.
I like what you did here, so we may have the footnote saying:

Michael Schumacher had his fourth career grand slam and his second for Ferrari,[3] having took pole position, the fastest lap, and won the race by leading every lap. Charles Leclerc's 2022 grand slam performance at the same Grand Prix, which was the first time since 2004 a driver achieved a grand slam at the Australian Grand Prix, was compared to that of Schuamcher in 2004.[4]

Something like that. But if you are not convinced yet, we may leave it as it is while adding the 2022 Race Fans reference to further verify that Schumacher did indeed achieve a grand slam at the Grand Prix and that it was a dominant performance as we say, without mentioning 2022 or Leclerc. As for the rest, I understand and I think it is fine as it is. Feel free to further improve it. Davide King (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily object, I just think that the comparision is only really relevant when looking back, as opposed to forward. SSSB (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Australian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196386803"