Talk:2001 Macau Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• It contains copyright infringements - Copyvio comes up clean, images are free.Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No signs of edit warring on the article Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Links

• The external link to the official website doesn't seem to work. [1] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• formally the 48th Macau Grand Prix - Acording to whom?
• The race was divided into two aggregate legs: the first leg was held in the morning and lasted fifteen laps. The second took place in the afternoon and lasted fifteen laps - Combine. Seeings they are the same length races, can just be a one sentence such as The race was divided into two aggragate legs: one held in the morning, and the second held in the afternoon, with both legs lasting fifteen laps Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Mugen x Dome Project - Is the x normal for cross team applicants? The only one I can think of is McLaren Mercedes Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That is correct in this instance. MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Background and entry list

• Wikilink Guia Circuit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Three Macanese drivers were issued invitations from the Macau Grand Prix Committee to participate in the event: Jo Merszei, Michael Ho and Kit Meng Lei - Is this independently notable that they were Macanese? Is this unusual? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mostly because the drivers who are from Macau do not usually compete in any other known races apart from the Macau Grand Prix. MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• The paragraph on the history of the event should be at the top of this section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Practice and qualifying

• "Two practice sessions were held before the race on Sunday. The first session, held on Thursday morning, lasted thirty minutes, while the second identically timed session, took place on Friday morning" - The 30 minutes could easily be put into the first sentence here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Any info on the second practice? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Same details with qualifying, the time could be moved to only be mentioned once. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• looks like the sessions went practice->qualifying->practice->qualifying. Might need to be explained, the dates are a bit confusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Last paragraph is quite large. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Does the warm-up need it's own sub-section? Could easily be absorbed into either this or the race subsection. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe that the warm-up session needs to be separate from the race section so that people accessing the page know what part of the race meeting they are reading about. MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Race

• The overall Grand Prix winner was the driver who won the second leg provided all of the race's 30 laps were completed in the shortest amount of time. - This seems more implied than anything else. Clearly the person who wins the second leg would most likely be the winner overall, but not neccesarily. The shortest amount of time is surely the only defining factor of the winner. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Should the quote in the quotebox be written with speech marks? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• The rest of this is really well written. I can't see too much wrong with it. Great work Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

• No notes. References are well layed out/tagged and archived. Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Quick note for the infobox - Any ideas why the second leg doesn't list Sato as the pole qualifier? It just lists him, without saying what he did - Is this normal? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is standard practice for this type of article. MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • But both the 2006 Macau Grand Prix and the 2007 Macau Grand Prix articles do have the title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Would is also be a good idea to have the |next and |previous variables used for this article, as there are so many in the series of events? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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:

Comments

I'll place this on hold. There's two things I'd like to address here. It's a little confusing in places (mostly due to the structure of the race itself. To a non-racing fan, it could be slightly better worded. Secondly, the timings of the qualifying and practice sessions make that section quite confusing. The prose is well written, and a quick move of wording should allow this article to pass. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. All above queries have been addressed and have replied where appropriate. MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've checked through the changes, and I'm happy. I'll promote this now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)