Talk:Gilles Villeneuve/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article has massive issues that need to be urgently addressed.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is poor, perhaps 4/10. Many sections are messy, and the article is improperly organised - it should be a chronology of his career with the most important races highlighted, not in a section of their own. Some parts of the article suffer from Peacock prose and other problems.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

Most of the online references are inproperly formatted, there are numerous tags and big banner tags indicating sourcing problems. It also looks like a number of references may be unreliable (Youtube?).

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

Writing problems make it difficult to tell.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Writing problems make it difficult to tell.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns.) Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Made a start on the most obvious stuff. The way I see it the remaining work is reformatting refs (probably easiest to use templates), adding refs where necessary, an end to end re-write with a particular eye to WP:PEACOCK. A week should be OK, but I've got quite a few RealLife^TM demands on my time at present so that assessment may change. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. Thankyou very much for taking this article on.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an update: obvious there is still more to do here. However, since work is progressing I am very happy to extend this review as long as required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed ref 1 formatting, found BBC article for ref 7. I ahve given the article a quick prose rewrite, but will message Jacky for explanation of "Peacock prose" as I cannot find anything on it in Wiki. The content seems ok, maybe a little brief on the 1978 season, but will leave that up to others to discuss for now. --Chaosdruid (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For peacock prose, see WP:PEACOCK. "exceptionally popular not only with fans" as copied below - is an excellent example of peacock prose - unqualified and unreferenced praise.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In reply to the message on my talk page, the article now seems to cover his F1 career adequately, although I notice one or two minor prose issues which will will hihghlight when I do my final review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry its been a while, I've been very busy that last couple of weeks. I will have to hold off on the prose review (Although I will come to it when I can), but I can safely say that this article is in no danger of being delisted and will certainly pass when the review is complete. Regards. --Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice article and thoroughly deserves to remain a GA.--Jackyd101