Talk:2000 Rio 200

Latest comment: 5 years ago by HawkAussie in topic GA Review
Good article2000 Rio 200 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2019Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:2000 Rio 200/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, 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):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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'll sure do this review and hopefully this will be enough for Good Article status. HawkAussie (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

Lead

edit

Background

edit

Practice and Qualifying

edit

Warm-up

edit

Seems fine here

Race

edit

Looks fine here

Post-race

edit

Looks fine here as well.

Final Comments

edit

Looking at the improved article, I think this is good enough. Well done on getting another GA. HawkAussie (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.