Talk:2015 Spanish Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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):
The post-qualifying subsection is a level four subsection while the post-race subsection is a level three subsection. Both need to be either a level three or level four. I'd go with the latter, but that's just me.

I felt that post-race corresponds to background rather than post-qualifying. That is also in line with the other GA-status articles for this season's races (see Malaysia and Bahrain). Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm going to put this article on hold and ask for a second opinion on this point.--Nascar king 01:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

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:
~~Address the point of concern in 1b and it's a pass~~.--Nascar king 22:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC) While the subsection note is something I'd advice looking at in the future, it's a minor nitpick that doesn't need to hold up this nomination. So I hereby give 2015 Spanish Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.--Nascar king 03:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have reviewed your Daytona article on paper, just need to type it into the review, so you can expect that very soon as well :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]