Talk:2010 Japanese Grand Prix/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk · contribs) 11:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I will attempt to review this article over the coming days.
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:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- 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:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Source seems to say that Suzuka had eighteen corners in 2010 rather than seventeen. Autocourse also seems to list Suzuka as having eighteen corners. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Changed the article to reflect the sourcing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Paul di Resta not participating in practice feels like it needs more context, although reading the source I'm not particularly sure what. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- True, not much is stated in my research MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
How was Hamilton "HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Refreshing the page it seems that my browser cut off the last two lines of the source article, so yes, I was missing something. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)intrigued to learn he remained in the championship battle
"? I don't really get that impression from the source. Am I missing something?- "
Lucas di Grassi was replaced by GP2 Series driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio at Virgin Racing to allow the latter to undergo evaluation as a driver in the second successive first practice session.
" probably needs to have the fact that di Grassi was only replaced for free practice put closer to the verb. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)- Changed wording MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- The part of the Autosport source in the first paragraph of the qualifying section where the Williams technical director proposes the introduction of monsoon tyres seems like it could be utilised in the text. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion of parc fermé could be clearer. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Added note MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- How did Kubica "not make much of an impact during qualifying"? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Removed wording MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Feel like "
footage observed Vettel moving and stopping again before the event commenced
" could be clearer. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)- Reworded MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- "
Green flag pit stops
" could be clearer. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)- Changed wording MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Order needs to be switched on the speed Rosberg's crash happened at so km/h goes first, as that would seem to be consistent with the rest of the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Kobayashi's performance seems to receive an (almost unusual) level of coverage in sources. Perhaps this could be briefly mentioned in the lead? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- All quotes appear to be appropriately sourced. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Passes the Good Article criteria fairly easily. Would need a copyedit to reach Featured Article status, but not much more. A very well sourced and comprehensive article. Thanks to MWright96 for addressing the few comments I had. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)