Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply


Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found.

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Well written, complies with key MoS elements.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Well referenced to reliable sources, no evidence of OR. Spotchecks show that online sources support statements, assumme good faith for off-line sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Excellent coverage.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Stable
  6. 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):  
    Suitable images, licensed and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

I don't like quick passing articles and it might look like I'm not doing my job, but please believe me when I say that I think these articles are flawless. I spent my time reading this one and couldn't find anything to point out, so it meets the criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply