Talk:Monaco Grand Prix/GA1
GA Reassessment edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will do a GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am about half way through the article but I wanted to make a comment on this statement: "Prost lost that year's championship by only half a point - had the race not been stopped early, if Prost had finished second, he would have gained 6 points as opposed to 4.5, and been crowned World Champion." It is not good form to speculate as to what would have happened. Given the previously-stated unpredictable nature of this race, anything could have happened had the race continued, and Prost could have not finished the race at all. I would recommend trimming this statement to only the fact that Prost lost the championship by half a point. Readers can infer what might have happened had the race been allowed to continue to the end.
(inserted later) If you watch the full BBC race coverage on youtube it is clear that Prost was losing about 20-30 seconds a lap in the very last two laps (i.e. his half-lap lead evaporates almost instantly) and would not have been able to hold second either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:130:400:1660:2476:BAB5:6DF5:98BD (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Take care with the word "prestigious". I removed it from one sentence. It is usually unnecessary and can be interpreted to be a peacock word.
I added a [by whom?] tag to one statement that could be in violation of WP:WEASEL, check it out and see what you think. H1nkles (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed a couple of these. Agree with the 'prestigious' you removed, but note that this particular race does merit the title so its use will sometimes merit the word. I look forward to further comment. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- No argument here that the race is certainly "prestigious", which is why I left one of the uses of the word in the article. Thank you for your prompt work. Since you've jumped on it so quickly I will hold off on notifying interested projects and editors of this review. H1nkles (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the information about Schumacher's "accident" and controversy really adds to the article. It is also supported by an in-line citation that has a dead link tag since May 2009. Consider removing.
There are several [citation needed] tags from as early as February 2007 in the "Organisation" section. This is a concern and should be addressed.
There are also several dead links in the references section including: 21, 40. Links 1 and 22 also do not appear to be working correctly in my browser and 33 and 34 don't open at all. Please look into these.
Overall the article is stable and current. I'd like to see the speculative statement, and the (in my opinion) unnecessary information about Schumacher's controversial actions in qualifying, be removed. I don't think this disqualifies the article from GA though. The writing is ok, images are good, no edit wars. My primary concerns are related to the dead links, and the [citation needed] tags in the Organisation section. I will put the article on hold for a week pending work on the cites. I will advise editors and projects of this in the hopes that these can be addressed. H1nkles (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Deadlinks and unreffed sections fixed. Prose issues may be best handled by someone more familiar with the subject. Wizardman 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Wizardman. Refs 34 and 35 still seem to be broken, but apart from that I'd tentatively say all the issues identified have been fixed. I've thought about removing the Schumacher incident, but it made big news at the time, so I think probably counts as a notable part of the event's history (as the 1994 Australian Grand Prix and the 1997 European Grand Prix do for their respective circuits). Are we missing anything, H1nkles? 4u1e (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Great work, thanks. The two refs (34 and 35) are still dead as far as I can tell. Can new references be put in there? Otherwise I have no problem keeping it at GA. I'll go ahead and process the GA keep trusting that you'll find a fix for those two dead links. H1nkles (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)