Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 17:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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:

Dear Prisonermonkeys, as you've probably seen, I made some minor adjustments myself. What I feel is left to do for GA status is:

Generally, I feel that all of the inline citations given in the lead could be moved in the infobox or removed because they are given in the article body.
Weather needs a source,
Background: You give a photo of the first Russian GP, but there is no text about those early editions. If you write nothing about it, you need a source in the caption, and in the lead where the first races are also mentioned.

Fixed — I added a reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a source for the statement that it was the first time that anyone except the FIA had such power.

Removed. A clear cut case of an editor's believe entering an article. T v x1 11:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marussia entry: Even though it does not relate strictly to this race, you should probably mention that Bianchi's accident later proved fatal.
Free practice and qualifying: Both sections are written in a way that non-regular F1 watchers or laymen will probably be left with questions about how these sessions take place. You should give a short overview over the process: How many session are there? Who is eliminated when? and so forth and give sources for that.

Added, though it's weird that you raise this. These explanations are not consistently present in the 2015 article you wrote for a considerable part and they achieved Good Article status nevertheless. T v x1 11:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #21 only mentions that Sirotkin was scheduled to take place, you should add another source that confirms that he did.

Done, T v x1 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is compatriot a proper synonym for teammate? I've never heard it in that context and considering compatriot includes patria, I also find that usage quite strange.

Fixed. Of course not. Compatriot is a synonym of countryman. I've change it. T v x1 11:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free practice: The first sentence of the second paragraph needs changes. It was Hamilton, not Mercedes who led the way and he didn't do so once again considering that Rosberg was fastest in FP1.

Fixed, T v x1 11:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race: I feel that you should give the live ticker source earlier, at the end of the fourth paragraph at the latest, and then only repeat it at the end of the section.
Post-race: I feel that only covering the championship situation here is a little slim. Maybe you can include more reactions from teams and drivers?
Now for the good old table dilemma: We have not yet agreed in the Project to switch back to wikitables for the 2015 reports. I know you like the other ones, but for consistency's sake, all 2014 reports should have the old wikitables.
Ref #46 (from Caterham) is dead.

Recovered. I recovered the source using the Web archive. It is now ref #47. T v x1 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very good work so far! I am on vacation until the 12th and will not be able to react until then. So take your time to implement the changes. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Optional: You could bold the drivers and teams still capable of winning the title.

Additional remark:

Ref #10 does not support the claim it is paired with. T v x1 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisonermonkeys: @Tvx1: It's been more than a week and not all of the above has been dealt with. I'd hate to fail this, since it's not far away from passing. Can you tell me when you'll be able to adress the issues? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure. Things have come up in real life that demand my attention. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'll try to tackle another few of the issues. T v x1 10:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat, I can keep the review open until the end of the GA Cup :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have successfully archived all the refs using Checklinks to prevent further link rot. This is still a major working point for the project. Only 3 of the 59 refs were archived (coincidentally by me) before I archived the rest. We really all should develop the habit to archive url's straight away when we enter them. It is really a little effort and it saves a lot of work afterwards because it prevents link rot.

Having run the copyvio tool, I might have detected some possible copyright violation tool. T v x1 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that that hints toward copyvio. I don't usually use that tool anyway since everytime I have, it was far too oversensitive, giving false positives a lot... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry after all. It seems the copying went in the other direction. T v x1 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1:, @Prisonermonkeys: Any chance one of you can get around to taking care of what is left to do? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of what was left to do myself. Pass now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]