Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, complies with key MoS elements.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced to reliable sources, no evidence of OR. Spotchecks show that online sources support statements, assumme good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Excellent coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Suitable images, licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I don't like quick passing articles and it might look like I'm not doing my job, but please believe me when I say that I think these articles are flawless. I spent my time reading this one and couldn't find anything to point out, so it meets the criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)