2016 Berlin ePrix 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. Review: April 29, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Berlin ePrix article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Berlin ePrix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 17:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Opening for discussion. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- " He held the lead through the mandatory pit stops in which drivers switched into a second car to win the race. " This sentence needs more punctuation.
- "with the pit lane on Karl-Marx-Allee and goes around Strausberger Platz and Alexanderplatz." The pit lane gpoes around these squares? Or the course does? Either way, clarity is needed.
- "was sixth points behind in the battle for the position". Six, I think?
- "The deal was confirmed in the week before the race and was originally slated to be World Endurance Championship driver Adam Carroll but the agreement fell apart." Source?
- If Qualifying was on Saturday and practice eon Sunday, why do we talk about practice first?
- "di Grassi was in a tight bunch of cars consisting of Vergne and Prost in fifth." They all can't be in fifth, who was in that position?
- "the pressure caused Vergne to clout the bollards at the chicane." This sentence literally has no meaning to me. Possible to rewrite in ordinary language?
- You're missing a word in "Buemi revealed that allowed Vergne to pass him and attacked him when the latter had used up more electrical energy. "
- Compelling read, on a short hold. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Courcelles: Thanks again for another review. All of your queries have been addressed and I have made some other edits for the purposes of clarity. MWright96 (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- All looks good, promoting. Courcelles (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)