Talk:2001 Italian Grand Prix/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by 333-blue in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I will start to review this article soon. 333-blue 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Some of "-" needs to be changed into "–" in references (also called "in-line citations").
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- It looks OK.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Yes, of course.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Relieable, from the F1 website.
- C. It contains no original research:
- But add more in-depth third-party sources will be better.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- [1], "the third person" said that it is OK.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Yes, all about the race.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Less unnecessary detail/details.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Yes, pretty fair.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Stable, only article expanding in the most recent edits.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- It looks OK.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Of course, they are about the race.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Only a few problems needed to be solved, others are fine!
- Pass or Fail:
- @333-blue: I've taken action on the copyvio source and hoped it's less of a problem. Z105space (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Still 67.2%. 333-blue 13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's odd, and yet I have removed the source from the page. I strongly suggest that the speedy deletion be dropped. Z105space (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- It would be fairer to just let an admin to decide it. 333-blue 13:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The short dashes have been replaced with longer ones where possible. Z105space (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yap, the only problems are solved, this article is passed. 333-blue 09:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- The short dashes have been replaced with longer ones where possible. Z105space (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- It would be fairer to just let an admin to decide it. 333-blue 13:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's odd, and yet I have removed the source from the page. I strongly suggest that the speedy deletion be dropped. Z105space (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Still 67.2%. 333-blue 13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)