Jump to content

Talk:2014 Monaco Grand Prix

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2014 Monaco Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Monaco Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 13:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review will follow shortly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I completely forgot about this review... will give it very soon, so sorry! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: Still haven't heard anything regarding this review. Is everything alright? I understand fully if real life commitments are taking priority. MWright96 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unbelievable sorry this took so long, the past few weeks have been crazy RL-wise. Here we go now:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

What needs to be done:

Overall, a very well written article with just those minor points to adress. I have made some minor changes myself were I felt they were needed. I will try to do the other review today as well, tomorrow the latest. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I can pass this now. Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]