Talk:Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports ,
a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Rescue services
"While some rail against this imposed regulation, it has to be remembered that the rescue services are morally obliged to risk their lives when sailors are at risk" ... this sounds awfully moralistic and irrelevant for an encyclopaedia article.
[edit] Saying related to $100 bills
As the saying goes, "Ocean racing is like tearing up $100 bills under a cold shower."
A google search for "Ocean racing is like tearing up" only got copies of this article. Should it be removed? Andjam 06:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It depends how you phrase your search terms. Google for 'sailing $100 bills' found me this CNN article from 1999. Google for 'yacht tearing $100 -wikipedia' gets quite a few as well. Perhaps rephrase it, but the saying seems to be valid. -- Chuq 07:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] In scope for collaborative improvement and things to do
There are an awful lot of red links relating to International yacht racing. I guess it is within scope to at least fix these up to be stubs.
Secondly, the lead section seems to be quite long and therefor perhaps not a lead as per Wikipedia:Introductions: ie consisting of "one or more introductory paragraphs". However, I am not sure what heading the material would best fit under.--A Y Arktos 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Much of the lead could be reworked into a history section--nixie 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 73/74
Found this table with most of the winners [1], but it says that 1973 winner was Helsal and 1974 was Ondine III, while this table [2] has 1973 as Ondine III and 1974 as Helsal. Any idea which would be right? ---- Astrokey44|talk 23:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would go with this link: http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/sysfile/downloads/Race_statistics.pdf as it is the official site. It gives the 73 winner as Helsal stating in the section on notable years for race records: "1962: Ondine (USA) – 3 days 03 hours 49 minutes 16 seconds (In breaking Kurrewa IV’s record set a time that stood until broken by Helsal in 1973)". The 1974 race doesn't get a mention on that page. However, this Uni of Melbourne page gives winning times stats for each race and lists Ondine III for 74 and Helsal for 73. --A Y Arktos 23:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- ok so its Helsel for 73, must just be the motorsm.com page which has it wrong ---- Astrokey44|talk 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Images
Is this any use? GummAY 06:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- looks excellent, needs to be accompanied by a meaningful caption - Regards--A Y Arktos 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting data in "winners" table
Now that the we have almost all the data we need, I think putting it in a common format would be a good idea. Currently we have:
- xd yh zm as
- xxd yyh zzm aas
- dd:hh:mm:ss
- dd:hh:mm
- d:hh:mm
The official site lists them as dd:hh:mm:ss
Thoughts anyone ? GummAY 12:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and do you think fleet sizes( as found here) go in that table also? GummAY 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think we follow the format of the official site - I think 03:14:14:17 is easier to read than 2d 12h 36m 23s when comparing multiple times as opposed to a one off. I don't think we want a separate table for the fleet size so we should put it here. I would include starting and finishing fleet hough - sometimes there are marked differences.--A Y Arktos 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ambiguity in the History section
"However, it took 25 years for the 1975 record by Kialoa from the USA to be broken by the German boat Morning Glory in 1996" 1975 to 1996 is not 25 years, it's 21.
I'm not too sure how this should be worded. Did the author mean 25 years and put the wrong years in or did they get the calculation wrong and it should be 21. GoonerW 01:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stats to check
Yachts Section: "designer Bruce Farr, who has designed 15 overall winners."
Records Section: "Most Successful Yacht Designer: Bruce Farr (NZ), 14 overall winners"
Results Section: 1998 Sayonara 2:20:3.5 Midnight Rambler 2:12:36:23 115 44
Records Section: Worst Disaster: 1998, 6 sailors died; 115 yachts started but only 43 finished.
--gummAY 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weird Stat
In the table it says that the 1968 winner, Ondine II, won the race in 4 days, 30 hours and 20 mins - Isn't that then 5 days? That is what I naturally thought, either that or its a mistake - but looking at the Uni Melbourne page (http://www.scc.ms.unimelb.edu.au/whatisstatistics/sydhob.html) and on that page it also lists the 1968 winner as being 4 days and 30 hours etc.! So what on Earth is going on here? Is there some sailing convention that I'm unaware of that was adopted at some stage in the mid 1960s that says that once you get to the 4 day mark you just count in hours from that point on? Or can someone explain how someone could enter those values into the table without blinking an eyelid and realising the absurdity of what they were entering? I'm going to leave it like it is until someone can explain to me why it was put in in such a bizarre manner, and also why Melbourne Uni apparently endorses such a weird counting method! Which tends to suggest they got their numbers from somewhere else which also endorses such a weird method - or that the numbers for that year are perhaps wrong in some way. Cheers. jkm 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good observation. I've fixed that time using stats from the official site - it must have been something about a leading zero being in the wrong place. Now what I want to know is about the 1966 race - presently we have an entirely different winner and time listed! (Fidelis 4: 08.39 as compared to Carousel T 04:06:49:36) --gummAY 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peter Luke?
In the intro it lists Peter Luke was planning a cruise with friends - a recent obituary of Luke's from Offshore Yachting magazine and linked to from the race's own website [3] says it was Sydney artist Jack Earl (who also seems to be the second Australian to circumnavigate the world) that was originally planning the cruise to Tassie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.101.91 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have interviewed Peter directly. He was sailing on Sydney Harbour and saw a yacht he liked. As a photographer, he photographed it, sent it to its owner (Charlie Cooper) and Cooper sent him back a case of fruit. They decided to form a club for those interested in cruising, not racing. A number of them (including Earl) were planning a cruise to Hobart after Christmas in 1945 and had a British naval officer (Illingworth) addressed the newly formed Cruising Yacht Club of Sydney (as it was then - now is CYCA) and LUke and Earl invited Illingworth to join them. Illingworth replied with "why don't we make a race of it". Therefore, you are correct in that they were all involved. Michaelhobart (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC) PS: Offshore Yachting is the official magazine of the CYCA and the article was written by someone who also interveiwe Luke a number of times.
[edit] Getting to a Good Article
Some suggestions for improving this to a good article:
- The coverage seems reasonable - but is anything important missing?
- The references need to be impraved. Instead of some inline links, and notes, they whould all have the same style, and there should be far more references.
- Some stylistic improvements need to happen.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missing!
Well I think the 1993 race needs including in the history with only 38 finishers, it was probably the worst weather and most damage done to a 'modern fleet' and that year although no fatalities, saw the miraculous at sea recovery of an overboard sailor at night in the height of the storm by an oil tanker, he certainly is missing. The following year was the 50th with over 300 finishers, that probably should be mentioned too, and just as well the weather of 1993 did not re-occur that year!.Jagra (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
