Talk:2010 European Grand Prix

2010 European Grand Prix 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: November 25, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Formula One Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.

View the task list
Discuss the project
Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Valencia gate article

Contents of Valenciagate scandal that is salvageable, which is possibly none of it, should be merged into here. One drive-through penalty is not worth this level of coverage. --Falcadore (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's covered just fine. The third paragraph of the race write-up and the second paragraph of the post-race outcome give enough detail. The "Valenciagate" article is little more than a piece of propaganda intended as an attack on Hamilton. I don't see any way it could be re-written without being redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the useful parts, which as has been mooted, may amount to nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge here. Ignoring all the other problems with the Valenciagate (ugh!) article, there's not enough content to justify having a separate article. This article's still under 32kb, and would have to hit at least 50kb before we started thinking about branching off. If we can fit the rather more controversial 1997 European Grand Prix into a single article, then this relatively minor event will fit into this page. 4u1e (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them separate ~ The problem was not Hamilton, but why the safety car was incredibly deployed onto the circuit in front of Hamilton and behind Vettel, which in other words means that rules in F1 are unfair and badly written. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for a separate article that can easily be written into this article, and this is not the deletion discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 European Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"by the stewards for exceeding the safety car-in lap time" - misplaced hyphen?

"After running the F-duct device" - can this be linked to anything?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I managed to make a couple of points this time, but they were so minor that it won't of course affect the fact that this has passed with flying colours. It meets the criteria as it is well written, comprehensive and comfortable to read. JAGUAR 16:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]