Talk:2017 Paris ePrix

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Usernameunique in topic GA Review
Good article2017 Paris ePrix has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star2017 Paris ePrix is part of the 2016-17 Formula E season race reports series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 3, 2018Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2017 Paris ePrix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 Paris ePrix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply


Quick fail criteria assessment

edit
  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    •   — sourced.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    •   — neutral.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    •   — no banners or tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    •   — no edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    •   — subject is very complete.

Main review

edit

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

 

Infobox

Lead

Background

"stood in fifth place on 34 points ... on 115 points" — "on" sounds odd, suggest "with" instead.

"e.Dams-Renault were leading ... Audi Sport ABT were" — were, or was?

"e.Dams-Renault and Buemi had dominated the championship..." — I suggest putting this, and everything in the paragraph that follows it, at the beginning of the paragraph. It's more general than the specific points standings, and thus is better as an intro to the standings.

  • "podium finish, "It's a..." — you need an introduction to the quotation, e.g., "podium finish, saying "It's a..."
  • "José María López felt his team were" (and throughout the paragraph, and in "Post-race") — you can't know what López felt, you can only know what he said he felt (particularly apt here, when it's drivers rattling off sports clichés).

Practice and qualifying

Race

Post-race

Classification

Notes

b (MoS):

  — Appears compliant. A few minor issues (e.g., en dashes) are dealt with above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

  — Everything appears accurate and verifiable.

b (citations to reliable sources):

  — Sources all appear reliable.

c (OR):

  — No evidence of OR seen.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations): Copying appears confined to attributed quotations.  

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

  — Major aspects (pre/during/post) and context are covered.

b (focused):

  — Article is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy   — Article is neutral. However, as noticed in the prose points, you can't know what somebody felt or believed—you can only know what they said they felt or believed.

5. It is stable   — Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

  — Images are tagged and appear appropriately licensed.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

  — Images are captioned, but can we get alt text for them?

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:  

This Looks great MWright96, and will have no problems passing. There are many prose suggestions, but they're quite minor ; if you disagree with them, just say so. Other than that, just looking for some rephrasing regarding point of view, and for alt text accompanying the images. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply