Talk:2015 Australian Grand Prix

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Australian Grand Prix article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2015 Australian Grand Prix has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

2015 Australian Grand Prix is part of the 2015 Formula One season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 22, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
September 18, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Formula One Low‑importance

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.

View the task list
Discuss the project
Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Melbourne / Motorsport Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2015 Australian Grand Prix is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian motorsport (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Manor WD vs DNQ

If Manor-Marussia withdrew, we need to cite this. Otherwise, since we have sources that state they indeed showed up intending to race, we should recognize this as a failure to qualify rather than a withdrawal, right? Twirlypen (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a failure to qualify. They never even attempted to take to the track. They didn't even take part in any practice sessions, so the only alternative to the current listing would be DNP. But since they clearly signaled before the start of qualifying that they would not be driving we can recognize this as withdrawn. The fact that they showed up intending to race does not disprove withdrawing. I think you're confusing it with DNA (Did not arrive) there. T v x1 18:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no official withdrawal, which is why the FIA asked Manor what they thought they were doing by not taking to the track. So "WD" is not an option. We have no idea whether any attempt was made to take part – they were apparently working on the cars and trying to get them running, and we are not in a position to say with any certainty that they made no attempt. There is also no source to support it. They could see full well that they were not going to be able to get going for qualifying, so they said what they said. But that's not a withdrawal, as there was no official word to the FIA, and that's the only thing that counts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large grey areas in qualifying table

Why is there large gray areas in the qualifying table? In my opinion the regular white is much better and nicer looking. Colors should be used to bring attention to information not the opposite as someone has tried here. --80.223.129.187 (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grid 13 twice

In race classification are two drivers with Grid position 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.14.98.205 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Fixed Kvyat should have had 12 not 13, as everyone gained 1 position as Bottas did not start. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Australian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Numbers between one at twelve need to be spelled out. Anything bigger should just use numerals.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass:
Fix the issues addressed in point #1 and it's a pass.--Nascar king 17:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more instance of this and fixed it. Thank you for your review! :) Zwerg Nase 87.123.70.116 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now. I hereby give 2015 Australian Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.--Nascar king 17:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 Australian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://forix.autosport.com/gp.php?l=0&r=20140001&c=2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316145026/http://www.williamsf1.com/racing/news/bottas-declared-unfit-to-race-in-australian-gp to http://www.williamsf1.com/racing/news/bottas-declared-unfit-to-race-in-australian-gp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of uncited prose throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone willing to address this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]