Talk:2001 Italian Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will start to review this article soon. 333 -blue 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Some of "-" needs to be changed into "–" in references (also called "in-line citations").

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
It looks OK.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Yes, of course.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Relieable, from the F1 website.

C. It contains no original research:
But add more in-depth third-party sources will be better.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
[1], "the third person" said that it is OK.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Yes, all about the race.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Less unnecessary detail/details.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Yes, pretty fair.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Stable, only article expanding in the most recent edits.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
It looks OK.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Of course, they are about the race.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Only a few problems needed to be solved, others are fine!

@333-blue: I've taken action on the copyvio source and hoped it's less of a problem. Z105space (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still 67.2%. 333 -blue 13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, and yet I have removed the source from the page. I strongly suggest that the speedy deletion be dropped. Z105space (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fairer to just let an admin to decide it. 333 -blue 13:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short dashes have been replaced with longer ones where possible. Z105space (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yap, the only problems are solved, this article is passed. 333 -blue 09:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]