Talk:2008 German Grand Prix/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello all. I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, so check back soon for the result and my comments. Rafablu88 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Checklist and analysis
editI'll complete the checklist of the GA criteria here as well add my critique when I finish my review. Rafablu88 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- It looks fine after copyediting but be careful of too many blockquotes, especially back to back.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No problems on this part.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Clear focus on all aspects of the event.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Everything explained dispassionately.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No problems on this part.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: PASS
- Good job. For future reference, sentences do not need excessive uses of ";". They can instead be split and the same reference used for all.
- Pass/Fail: PASS
Important comments
editIf anybody has anything to say or ask relating to this review, don't be afraid to speak your mind. I will do exactly that. Rafablu88 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I pass the article, I require the following concerns to be fully addressed:
- MAJOR CONCERN: After copy-editing the article, the Post-race section contains too many blockquotes. These must either be removed, shortened or paraphrased. The section needs rewording and text repositioning. For future reference, quotations of more than 2-3 sentences MUST be put under blockquotes.
- I've taken the shorter block quotes and made them as part of their parent paragraphs. WP:MOSQUOTE says "more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines" should be block quotes, so there should be no problem with the shorter quotations. Apterygial 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Rafablu88 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- MINOR CONCERNS:
- In the lead it says: "Thus, when he did eventually stop on lap 50, he rejoined the race in fifth position. In the closing stages of the race, Hamilton overtook first his team-mate Heikki Kovalainen, then Massa, and finally Piquet, to take the lead again on lap 60, which he maintained to win the race." Now by my reckoning that is THREE cars passed from FIFTH which would take him to SECOND, NOT FIRST. Please clarify.
- The other position gained was due to Nick Heidfeld making a pit stop. I've added this to the lead.--Diniz(talk) 02:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- In the lead it says: "Thus, when he did eventually stop on lap 50, he rejoined the race in fifth position. In the closing stages of the race, Hamilton overtook first his team-mate Heikki Kovalainen, then Massa, and finally Piquet, to take the lead again on lap 60, which he maintained to win the race." Now by my reckoning that is THREE cars passed from FIFTH which would take him to SECOND, NOT FIRST. Please clarify.
Rafablu88 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do not be afraid to split sentences and use the same reference sentence after sentence. Omission usually leads to opinions or facts that need to be checked not having appropriate citations as is the case in the Background section: "Having honed the car's setup to his liking after initially finding the handling difficult..." and "Kovalainen was not as comfortable with the car's handling..." Both of these need their own citations even though they may be a proper reference a sentence away.
- I've now added more refs for the background section. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do not be afraid to split sentences and use the same reference sentence after sentence. Omission usually leads to opinions or facts that need to be checked not having appropriate citations as is the case in the Background section: "Having honed the car's setup to his liking after initially finding the handling difficult..." and "Kovalainen was not as comfortable with the car's handling..." Both of these need their own citations even though they may be a proper reference a sentence away.
Rafablu88 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The word hairpin is ambiguous to neutral readers. Add the corner number in brackets after the first mention of the word or replace all mentions with the corner number.
- I've changed the first mention of hairpin to a a link to hairpin turn. All following mentions are just hairpin. Does that fix the problem or not? I think that the majority of people know what a hairpin is. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The word hairpin is ambiguous to neutral readers. Add the corner number in brackets after the first mention of the word or replace all mentions with the corner number.
Rafablu88 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I will check back soon to see if the changes have been made. Do not hesitate to contact me. Rafablu88 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
POST-GA Thanks for your time and quick response. If you nominate any F1-related articles in the future, just drop me a line on my talk page and I'll be more than happy to review them for you. Good luck. Rafablu88 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)