Talk:2016 Spanish Grand Prix
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2016 Spanish Grand Prix has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 16, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
A news item involving 2016 Spanish Grand Prix was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 May 2016. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gif
[edit]Does anyone think that that GIF is pretty ugly? I would try and find photos on Flickr (as I usually do) and replace it. Anyone object? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Spanish Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Z105space (talk · contribs) 18:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll take on this review. What a historic day for all of motorsport. Z105space (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
General
[edit]- One thing I keep noting in your articles is that you sometimes spell the drivers' full names out after the first instance. It's best to avoid this.
- Hmm, I always try to keep the prose flowing, with full names often in new sections, to make it a little easier for readers who might not read the entire article... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]- The first mention of team-mate should be unhyphened as is seen in the rest of the article for consistency.
- "Max Verstappen won the race upon his debut for his new team Red Bull, having swapped his Toro Rosso seat with Daniil Kvyat ahead of the race." - try to avoid repetition of the word "race"; in the second instance it should be "event".
- Both Done
Free practice
[edit]- "two ninety-minute practice sessions" -ninety-minute should be spelt in number form per MOS:NUMBERS for consistency with high-value numbers as is seen in the article.
- Done
- "The Mercedes of Rosberg and Hamilton followed," - This may sound better: "Mercedes teammates Rosberg and Hamilton followed,"
- Done
- "Force India's Sergio Pérez managed only nine laps as he spent much of the session in the pits after smoke emerged from the rear of his car." - pits is slang and should be avoided, pit lane is better.
- Done
- "Upon beginning his preparation laps for qualifying, Rosberg had to come back into the pits," - ditto.
- Done
Qualifying
[edit]- fifty-second should be spelt in number form.
- According to MOS:NUMERAL, fifty-second is acceptable.
- "The two Red Bulls - Red Bull cars
- Done
Race
[edit]- "When Vettel pitted on lap 16," -pitted is slang, rewrite to "made a pit stop"
- Done
- "he emerged third behind the two Red Bulls," - as in the qualifying section, change to "Red Bull cars"
- Done
- "By lap twenty," - should be spelt in number form for consistency.
- Done
References
[edit]- No dead links
That is all I found. On hold until the issues have been addressed. Z105space (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Z105space: Should be good to go. Thank you for another swift review! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: I can now pass. Once again, good work! Z105space (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)