Talk:2011 Japanese Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

There are some significant sourcing questions I have to point out here. Most of the race & qualifying, along with the last part of practice is unsourced. Now considering I don't know F1 standards for citations that well, I'd still highly suggest replying to this, because this questionable in my book. Next, that block quote is toooooooooooooooooooooooo looooooooooooooooooooooong. Way too much of a quote I mean Vettel's thoughts are important, but there has to be 20 sentences there. Technically Post Race in that context needs to be Post-race. Next: the citations: You've overlinked BBC Sport and BBC way too much. Usually one link is good enough in that situation. (Continue a check for all of these at that point). Plus you might want to add locations (optional) for the citations. I'd pass this article, but the citations and the mega block quote needed to be worked on first. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be fair and let the nominator have until December 27 in case he/she is busy for Christmas/Chanukkah/Kwanzaa/Festivus celebrations. However the article is not up to standards at the moment. Consider it a gift.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 05:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The grace period has come and gone, and not much improvement has been seen in citation usage. Therefore, I unfortunately have to fail the article. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 00:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)