Jump to content

Talk:2015 Bahrain GP2 Series round

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Bahrain GP2 Series round/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  15:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    " while Lazarus and Rapax rounded out the top five" Lazarus is already linked in the lead
     Done MWright96 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The first race was held over either 170 kilometres (110 mi)" - why is metric first?
    It is the standard for the GP2 races to place kilometres first just like in Formula One. MWright96 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Take my advice and nominate this for FA as soon as you can! JAGUAR  20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, tempting but not quite yet. Needs a little more expansion work before FA can be realistic. ;) MWright96 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]