Jump to content

Talk:2008 Turkish Grand Prix/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting a review. SilkTork *YES! 15:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Images of the drivers are not from this race. Check out flickr to see if there are some shots of the race itself.

It has thus far generally been accepted to have images of the drivers out of their cars, not at the race itself. It was recomended to me by Apterygial to have images of the drivers, if no images of the race were available (and he did say that it was not right to use pictures of the cars at other races). The following articles all have images that are of drivers that were not taken at that particular race, and have all passed GA or FA: 2008 German Grand Prix (GA), 2008 Italian Grand Prix (GA), 2008 Japanese Grand Prix (FA) and the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix (FA). All of these seemed to pass without any trouble on that point. I will check flickr to see if there are some pictures of the race though. Darth Newdar (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked Flickr, and can see nothing which is free to upload to here. Darth Newdar (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section going into too much detail of the race. Could include some background to the drivers and constructors championship, and certainly should mention the Super Aguri situation.

I have shortened the race detail a little. Darth Newdar (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the Super Aguri information. Darth Newdar (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is clear, correct and appears neutral.

Stable.

Lots of cites (not checked yet).

Looks to deal with the main aspects.

Very promising. SilkTork *YES! 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more detail on the race could be cut from the lead. It needs to be a brief summary. Check out the other Grand Prix Good Articles - 1997 European Grand Prix, 2007 Australian Grand Prix, 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, etc.

I have cut some more. Is that short enough now? Darth Newdar (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"exclusive two-way battle" - it's one or the other, not both. "exclusive battle" or "two-way battle".

Changed it to "two-way battle". Darth Newdar (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"controvesy [spelling] over whether this race was Barrichello's 257th" - is it possible to give a half-sentence explanation for the dispute. And was it a controversy or simply a discussion? SilkTork *YES! 07:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it; see what you think. Darth Newdar (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. This is a good, informative article. Well done. SilkTork *YES! 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Turkish_Grand_Prix/GA1&oldid=1140249550"