Talk:2016 Australian Grand Prix/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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
[edit]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
- Disambiguation links
- No issues
- External links
- No issues
Well Written
[edit]- 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
[edit]- 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
[edit]- Looking at the sources, is F1Fanatic considered a reliable source?
- Everything else is looking good, reliable, formatted well.
Broad in coverage
[edit]- Yep
Neutral
[edit]- Yes
Stable
[edit]- Yep
Illustrated / Images
[edit]- 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,
@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: 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)
- @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)