Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Zwerg Nase in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply


I will review this as part of the GAN Backlog Drive. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  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:  
  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:  

I have made a number of minor changes. What remains is:

Infobox

  • Have added two Citation needed templates here.

Background

Race

Post-race

  • "Webber [...] had expected it to be honest" - ìn the press conference, he clearly says "I expected it to be an interesting race, to be honest". He does not say he expected the race to be honest, which would not have made any sense. So please rephrase this here.
  • The entire standings after the race section is far too similar to the one in the lead. I would recommend to cut down much of what is in the lead since it is a little too detailed. Also, writing that Webber extended his lead over Button is misleading, since obviously his advantage over Button was reduced, but Button moved up into second. Rephrase both in the lead and in the post-race section to reflect that.
  • The last sentence should be moved into the second paragraph of this section, where the incident is dealt with. Also, the "rivalry" between Webber and Vettel needs some context, since an uninformed reader will not know that they even had one.

Classification

References

That's what I found. Good work so far! I'll put the review on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Passed, good job! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply