Talk:2016 6 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps/GA1

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:19, 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  20:19, 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):  
  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:  
  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 wonder why there isn't an infobox with this one? Of course it's no problem (WP:DISINFOBOX) but this is the only I've ever seen without one! JAGUAR  15:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply