Talk:2001 Austrian Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Urbanoc (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll start reviewing this article to celebrate the new F1 championship. I'll be leaving suggestions/inquiries from tomorrow, if everything goes to plan. After I end reviewing it, I'll put the article on hold for up to seven days to allow the nominator to address any concerns.

I had some problems, let's see if I can start the review today/tomorrow. In any case, there's little chance the F1 will srart this weekend, it seems. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article just needs a couple of minor edits max. I could make them myself per WP:BOLD, but I'll leave the nominator do it, that way he can give feedback on the points if he sees it relevant. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's begin. I'll divide my review into two main sections: General comments and Specific comments. I recommend you to wait until I put the article on hold before making changes, as I'll be slowly introducing suggestions and questions.

General comments

Prose and MoS

Mostly OK with guidelines. I'll be leaving some minor nitpicking in the Specific comments section.

References layout

It seems OK for the GA criteria.

Original research and reliable sources

The article doesn't seem to have original research, as the claims are backed by the sources given (at least most of them, as I checked). Sources themselves, on the other hand, seemed in a first scrutine the weakest point of the otherwise very solid article content, some being somewhat of a lesser quality. Very few, but they are there. However, after consideration and contrasting against policy, my opinion is that they are reliable enough as backing for the claims being made. The potentially contentious claims are backed by sources widely regarded as reputable, as Autosport.

Broadness and focus

The article covers most details of the race, without being overkill.

Neutral

No significant bias as far as I see. All opinions are attributed in text.

Stable

It doesn't seem to be a heavily edited article, and most of the later edits are by you. There's no aparent content dispute.

Images

No problems there. Although, I wonder if there's a better picture of Schumacher you can use. If you have reasons to use that particular one, ignore this comment.

Overall

A quite good article, without any relevant flaw. At this point, I have no doubts it will pass.

Specific comments

Race section

Verstappen then bettered his own fastest lap to a 1-minute and 13.282 seconds on the following lap as he passed Coulthard for fifth.

Why the hyphen? The rest of the article doesn't seem to use it. Is there a special reason? If not, I recommend to remove it.

An attempt by Barrichello to pass his teammate Michael Schumacher on lap six almost resulted in at the Remus Kurve turn.

I strongly suggest to add "contact" after "in".

@Urbanoc: Thanks for the review. I have made the changes suggested above and have done some supplementary edits to the article. MWright96 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- MWright96, I checked your extra changes. I think they slightly improve the article, so no more from me. If anything, they make me feel more comfortable passing it. Excellent work! --Urbanoc (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]