Talk:2003 London Champ Car Trophy

GA Review

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:2003 London Champ Car Trophy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 12:58, 7 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)} 13:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• It contains copyright infringements - CopyVio brings up the large quote in the prose. I'll comment on this later. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 7 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)} 13:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Links

• No issues with checklinks Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• No dablinks Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• Bourdais remained on the circuit for one extra lap because he was conserving fuel - Surely because he had conversed fuel? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• to assume the lead - Does one assume the lead? I'd prefer gain, or take. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Is there an article for the Drivers' Championship? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overall, well written lead. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Background

• First paragraph doesn't do a great job explaining that the race took place at Brands Hatch, and that it was the fourth race (I know it says so in the lede, but should be stated in the background for context). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• What is a Indy configuration? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• CART president and CEO Chris Pook cited the track's proximity from London and the history of the Brands Hatch circuit as the primary reasons. - Reasons for what? Holding the race at the track, or the configuration? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• The quote needs to be speechmarked. Also, attribute where this was being said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Het felt the two-part - typo? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Practice and qualifying

• I'm a bit confused by the dates and times of the sessions. The race - 5 May 2003 is a monday. However, the article says: Two 50-minute practice sessions were held on the Saturday before the race. A third 75-minute session took place on the Sunday morning prior to qualifying. - So what does this mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• "This meant they could only push hard on their final attempts." - Push hard seems like jargon. How about - could only set their fastest times...Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• " Monteiro and Camathias ran four out-laps before their final attempt" - should probably explain what an "out-lap" is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Race

• Picture box has a spelling mistake "jt" instead of "it". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to see dates as well as times for each of these sections. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Rest is very good Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Post race

• The top three drivers appeared on the podium to collect their trophies and at a later press conference - This doesn't seem like a completed sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• lots of quotes in this section. Could probably be summarized a bit better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Everything else is ok. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

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

MWright96 - placed on hold for now. There's not much above. My only issues are that the article refers to days of the week a lot, so it's confusing as to when things actually took place. If you could let me know about that, it should be fine to promote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: Many thanks for the review. Have made the necessary changes and have cut down on the use of quotes where necessary. MWright96 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• No problems MWright96 - It looks a lot better now. I'll pass this one now. If you could leave me a message on if my review was helpful, please do. If not, congratulations. This was a very good read, especially with the dates fixed, sounds like a poor cart race though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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.