Talk:Jochen Rindt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am a WikiCup participant, as is the nominator.

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

" he was black flagged for his dangerous driving style" While the wikilinking of black flagged is good, I think the article would be more clear if the term was expanded upon a bit. Something like "was shown the black flag and disqualified".
Done Clarified.
"According to Austrian motorsport journalist Helmut Zwickl, both Rindt and Gregory had planned on driving the car on the limit, expecting it to break before half distance" This should be cited, while not a direct quote, it is likely close paraphrasing and so should be cited as if it were a quote.
Both his and Ickx's quotes come from the Reuß documentary. I felt that one reference was enough for both?
I would feel better with the extra citation. I added it, but if you disagree, you can revert. Wugapodes (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The year 1970 shouldn't be linked. Years shouldn't be linked, and it doesn't go where I thought it was going. See WP:YEARLINK and WP:ASTONISH.

I spelled out that we are talking F1 seasons at the first mention (1965) to avoid WP:ASTONISH. However, I feel that the way it is handled is well within WP:YEARLINK since it points to "a particular development" of the subject matter and to have the season articles close at hand helps the reader go directly there if they want to read further into it.

It's not so much my taste, but not a GA issue so it's no big deal. Wugapodes (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the swift review :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results

On hold 7 days. Very minor problems for a very well written article. Looking forward to the changes. Wugapodes (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listed A really well written article. The prose is very compelling, and I think it is already well on its way to FA quality. Thanks for the great contribution, and keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!! An FA would obviously be great, let's see if that works out. Good luck to you in your further Wiki Cup endeavours :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]