Talk:Fittipaldi Automotive/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reassessing this article for GA sweeps. It's a nice article, but it has fallen below current GA standards. Here are some things I've noticed that need fixing:

The refs should use ref tags, just to make it look nicer, as right now what's italicized, where the URLs are, etc. is inconsistent.
- Ref tags? Do you mean templates? If so, to my knowledge they are not a GA requirement and the article cannot be failed on that basis. Total consistency in formatting is not a requirement either, but I will tidy it up. 4u1e (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a requirement, true, but it would be nice if they were fixed up a bit. Wizardman 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs #1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 22 are dead links or redirect to the wrong place. They definitely need fixing.
- Fair enough, will do. 4u1e (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This one's done now. Wizardman
What makes ref #26 reliable? (the forum one)
- Probably it's not. I'll find something else. 4u1e (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The couple citation needed tagged sentences/pargraphs need to be remedied.

I'll give you five days to fix these. If progress is made I'll read through the prose; if not then I'll delist this. Wizardman 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the effort to review the article. I'll get to the required changes. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep working on this, but I'll need more time. Real Life is keeping me busy, so I can't spend as much as I would like on this. I'm also trying to use high quality sources, which usually means hard copy not online, which is slower (but better in the end!). Cheeers. 4u1e (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine: I'll move onto a prose review shortly, real life's busy for me too. Wizardman 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a prose review sometime in the next week. Until then, I hope the fixes can be moved on a bit quicker. Wizardman 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full-on prose review, with everything that still needs fixing:

I tagged anything that needed a citation as such. All those should be cited.
"The team was initially based in Brazil, almost 6,000 miles (10,000 km) away from the United Kingdom, a bold move given the overwhelmingly British nature of Formula One technology from the 1960s onwards." A bold move sounds pov; either find a source that states it or reword.
"Wilson crashed in chassis FD01 on lap 13 of their first race," sound grammatically odd to someone unfamiliar with F1; reword.
"Rosberg did manage to finish a lapped 4th at the non-championship FOCA South African Grand Prix at the start of the year" finishing fourth yet being lapped sounds unusual - i think some elaboration may be nice here.
"albeit actually 7th on the road behind six cars from the world championship which were not entered in the Aurora series." Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it sounds odd. They were in a race mixed in with drivers who were and were not in the series? How common is that if right?

I'll give you two weeks to fix all these issues, until January 16. If it's done this will be kept, if now it will be delisted, and will have to go through GAN to get the status back. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on page that you're going on wikibreak. That sucks, hope you come back soon. As for this review, I can't extend it any further, and as such I am delisting it as a GA. Hopefully it'll be fixed up and put back on GAN soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]