Talk:2016 Australian Grand Prix

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Australian Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 01:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well, for my fellow Wiki Cup competitor. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  01:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• WP:LEAD - article this size should have a 3-4 paragraph lead

Copyright violations Tool

• No concerns Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• No issues Y

Well Written

Lead

• "accident between Fernando", i would use "involving" instead of "between"

 Done

• "finish, after" does not need the comma

 Done

Regulation changes

• I had to read the source to really understand the elimination rule in the first sentence, perhaps you could clarify in the article?

Is it more understandable now? This is really tough, no wonder this format sucks balls... everything in sports that you cannot explain to someone in 5 sentences is bullocks... I did not want to go into too much detail about the format here, since I felt that was what the qualifying section is for. Maybe now it is a good compromise?

• "and one the third part of qualifying" there is something I am missing because I don't get this sentence.

 Done This was poorly phrased indeed.

Free practice

• what does "flat-spotted" mean?

 Done Wikilinked.

• "Both Renault and Williams drivers did not set a time" how about "Neither Renault nor Williams drivers set a time"?

 Done

• "Both Sauber" sounds better if starting with "The Sauber"

 Done

• "dried at the start" should be "dried by the start"

 Done

• "with fourth" should be "with a fourth"

I actually feel it is more precise here. A fourth place makes it sound like there was more than one fourth place...?

Qualifying

• Now there is the explanation I was needing earlier.
• "position, and" does not need the comma

 Done

Post-qualifying

• "criticism, but" does not need a comma

 Done

Race

• "fifth placed" should be "fifth-placed"

 Done

• First paragraph is totally unsourced? In fact most of this section is unsourced??

 Done

• Is "on pole position" the correct usage? I would gave thought "in pole position"

You are correct, it is "in".

• "rounded up" I believe the phrase is "rounded out"?

 Done

Tables

• Shame they don't sort - is that standard in F1 articles?

Why should a result table be sorted in any other way than by the result itself?

• what is the "107% time"?

 Done Wikilinked

Sources/verifiable

• Looking at the sources, is F1Fanatic considered a reliable source?
• Everything else is looking good, reliable, formatted well.

Broad in coverage

• Yep Y

Neutral

• Yes Y

Stable

• Yep Y

Illustrated / Images

• Not sure about the course graphics - it's not an official source but made by "some guy" basically - how do we know that's an accurate depiction?

That is a good question, and we have had some problems with those maps in the past (and actually have right now with the Bahrain map since it gives a wrong circuit length). It is unfortunate that the author of this map does not give a source material for his map, I guess he took it from some map service like Google? I don't know. Generally, these maps are accepted as they are in the race report articles and the article would be much less without it... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• The rest are all good and I must say high quality shots, Y

@Zwerg Nase: - that's what I got, not a ton of issues. Holding for improvements to be made, seven days unless you think you need more time?  MPJ-US  03:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Thank you for the review! Bear with me when it comes to taking on the other one you did, I do not have too much time atm. As for QPQ on your articles and lists, I will try to look at them, but unfortunately I am neither good with FLCs nor with wrestling... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: No worries about the FLC etc., it's not everyone's cup of tea, which is why I try to spread the word and if i get one in five reply I am happy. The other GA has just a few grammatical challenges - I could even be bold and just fix them.  MPJ-US  23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: I expanded the lead a little bit more to have it reflect the major points in the article. However, I don't believe that it warrants a full 3-4 paragraph lead, since the lead would then list too much trivial information. I hope this resolves the issues to get this to GA? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Zwerg Nase: looking at the article, the "readable prose" part is 18K, the tabels etc drive up the overall article size. Looking at the lead i think it truely covers it. I will reae through it one last time to.check.  MPJ-US  15:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• passed - great work.  MPJ-US  16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) I hope that over the weekend, I will at least find some more time to review GA Cup scores, I was forced to neglect that duty too much as well... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)