Talk:2001 German Grand Prix
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Zwerg Nase in topic GA Review
 | 2001 German Grand Prix 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. Review: July 6, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2001 German Grand Prix article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 German Grand Prix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC) On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Well, what can I say? An article of epic scope on a Formula One Grand Prix in 2001, and once again great work done by Z105space. There are just some very minor things I would like to address:
- I don't really know about galeforcef1.com as a reliable source. Since the website does not exist anymore, I find it hard to evaluate it. Maybe you can tell me more about it?
- GaleForceF1.com was the host of AtlasF1 (now part of Autosport) and the now defunct official website of Pacific Grand Prix. It is considered a reliable source by WP:MOTOR/SOURCES despite it being shut down.
- Thanks for clearing that up!
- Race: Two problems with the whole Minardi pre-start business. 1) The sentence you wrote makes little sense to me. Why did Marques use Alonso's car when it was on fire? Seems like a pretty stupid idea... 2) and more importantly, the source you give does not tell the story like you do, so I must assume original research. Please clarify this section.
- I have reworded that Alonso's car was repaired and Marques drove that car. The source, from GrandPrix.com, is also considered reliable as it is written by Joe Saward, the former editor of Autosport who has an official Formula One press pass.
- I rewatched the start of the race, and it appears that you are right when you describe what happened. But the source you give does not describe it like that. I never doubted GrandPrix.com as a reliable source, just that the content does not fit to what you write. I have reworded it to fit the source. If you find another, more detailed source, feel free to change it back.
- Race: There is no mention of Montoya's retirement!
- Added
That is about all I can find. Please look into the issues, you have the usual seven days, but I am confident we can bring this review to a pass in less time than that. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase: The issues raised have been rectified. I hope I have clarified the sources you questioned. Z105space (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Z105space: With the changes made, I can give this a pass. Congratulations :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)