Talk:2007 French Grand Prix

GA pass

I have reviewed the article and found that it meets WP:WIAGA. The references are excellent and well ordered. Im afraid suggestions for improvement are a bit short. I might suggest adding quotation boxes, see Category:Quotation templates for more details. Anyway good work. LordHarris 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I'm sorry, but without discussion you simply can't elevate an article to GA status on the word of one editor! This article fails GA on a number of fronts:

1. The principal one is that this is a report of a race, and yet the race report section is far shorter than the "Pre-race" guff!
2. There is too much use of unlinked or unexplained jargon.
3. The Lead Section needs rewording to summarise the actual race events (currently over half of this section has nothing to do with the actual race at all!).
4. Practice and testing aren't a competition! It is practice, it only needs commenting on if something of signinificant happens. I would argue that, in relation to this race, neither the Silverstone/Jerez tests nor free practice were at all significant.
5. The prose is lumpen, and there are grammar and punctuation mistakes aplenty.
6. The chronology and layout of the race report section is awry. The helicopter crash does not belong here, but in the pre-race (note that this section is named pre-race, not background or what happened in the week before).
7. Tabloidy prose abounds in the race report. One particularly blatant non-sequiteur in particular: "Massa got off to the best possible start and retained his lead, but Räikkönen passed Hamilton into Turn One" (the two events are not consequential, and so should not be linked).

In summary, this is a race report page, and should be centred around the race itself. As it stands, the race almost feels like an inconvenient afterthought. If you want to write about testing, or Stepneygate, or contract negotiations, or the proposed 2008 calendar, or intellectual property controversy, then do so in the 2007 Formula One season article, not a race report. The only exception to this should be when the background item has a direct influence on the racing, or the outcome of the grand prix weekend. By all means give each topic a single sentence in the pre-race section, and include a link to the full description on the season page, but a race report should be about the race. This is a good B-class article at present, but requires significant work and rewriting for GA status. Pyrope 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to say that your comments are wrong Pyrope (I'd be amazed if they're anything other than very precisely to the point!), but this is how the GA process works. For good or ill it's down to one (uninvolved) editor to decide and it just depends how much experience they have, what their personal tastes are, and very probably how they feel on the day. The reason is, I think, that GAs were intended to be less bureaucratic than FAs. I don't personally find it's any quicker to review a GA than an FA (about an hour), but at least you don't have to get consensus from umpteen people and their domestic pets of choice. You can, by the way, also delist without gaining consensus, but as you have pointed out at WPF1, it's probably best to work on the article. Cheers. 4u1e 10:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 French Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070705200210/http://www.manipef1.com:80/results/2007/france.php to http://www.manipef1.com/results/2007/france.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)