Talk:2011 Grand National

2011 Grand National 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Horse racing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing 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.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merseyside Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Grand National/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? Done - No issues

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? Done - No issues

3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout? Done - No issues

4. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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? Done - No issues

5. It contains no original research? Done - No issues

6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic? Done - Very good

7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? Done - Not too much detail I suppose

8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each? Done -

9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? Not done - Looking at the history, there are a few disputes.

10. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Done

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? Done - All images fine.

(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions? Done

Pass or fail? Done Pass because of second opinion.

2nd Opinion

An IP inserting unsourced material is not an editing dispute. I have reverted them. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

I don't like to muck around with a GA, but we shouldn't really have flags in the infobox. See WP:MOSFLAG. Tigerboy1966 22:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]