Talk:2013 24 Hours of Le Mans/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by HawkAussie in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


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

Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 08:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


So I will be happy to review this article as on first inspections it's look like it will be suitable for the good article. Of course you don't quite know if that is the case.

Lead

edit

Background

edit
  • This is fine, no problems with this

Balance of Performance changes

edit

Entries

edit

Testing and practice

edit
  • The LMGTE Pro class lead constantly changed with... - Was it between those two cars that followed through in this sentence or was their more cars involved in the changing of the lead.
  • Just a thought, is their any other related sources that suited for this practice session instead of using the same reference five times. Of course you don't have to follow it up as their is no issues with this.

Qualifying

edit

Race

edit

Warm-up

edit

Start

edit
  • ...for second at the second Mulsanne chicane... - Missing the word place after second.
  • ...Audi duo of McNish of di Grassi within half... - Change of to and here.
  • ...in the first three overall... - Change first to top.

Night

edit

Seems fine here

Morning to early afternoon

edit
  • ...lowered it by six seconds by... - Change by to to.

Finish

edit

Seems fine here

Post-race

edit

No issues here.

Standings after the race

edit
  • No issues

Footnotes

edit
  • No issues

References

edit

Final comments

edit

So just final touch ups and I think this is good enough to go for a good article. HawkAussie (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MWright96: Good job as that is another one to add to the Good Article bank. HawkAussie (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.