Talk:2002 Sure for Men Rockingham 500
(Redirected from Talk:2002 Sure For Men Rockingham 500)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review
2002 Sure for Men Rockingham 500 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: November 27, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from 2002 Sure for Men Rockingham 500 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 September 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dead link
editDuring several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=106073&FS=INDYCAR
- In 2002 Sure For Men Rockingham 500 on 2011-05-25 07:24:11, 400 BAD_REQUEST
- In 2002 Sure For Men Rockingham 500 on 2011-06-11 04:54:23, 400 BAD_REQUEST
Title?
editShould this article be moved to "2002 Sure for Men Rockingham 500" to comply with the manual of style re: caps? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: I'm for the idea. MWright96 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2002 Sure for Men Rockingham 500/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.
Checking against the GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No original research found.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Ha, I only listed one point this time. That's better than nothing! JAGUAR 13:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)