Talk:2018 Berlin ePrix

Orphaned references in 2018 Berlin ePrix

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2018 Berlin ePrix's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "standings":

• From 2018 Paris ePrix: "2017–2018 FIA Formula E Championship: Standings". Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Archived from the original on 26 January 2018. Retrieved 17 December 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From 2016–17 Formula E season: "2016–2017 FIA Formula E Championship: Standings". Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Archived from the original on 3 August 2017. Retrieved 2 December 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From 2017 Berlin ePrix: "2016-2017 FIA Formula E Championship: Standings". Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Archived from the original on 3 August 2017. Retrieved 2 December 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 Berlin ePrix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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:

Comments

Background

• 'braking areas for turns one and six and the turn nine hairpin.' - Remove the first 'and' for this part of the sentence.
• 'meanwhile came second in the 2016 edition of the ePrix and was confident' - Maybe change that to came second in the 2016 race instead

Practice and qualifying

• 'Di Grassi set the fastest overall lap time in all four groups in the fourth group with a one-minute and 9.620 seconds' - Doesn't sound quite right, maybe it needs a little bit of rewording.

Post-qualifying

• No problems here

Race

• The ninth lap had Heidfeld overtake Dillmann approaching 'the hairpin' - I assume you forgot to add turn nine here
• 'fifth around the inside at the turn nine hairpin on the lap' - Change at to of, and the to that
• 'heading into turn six on the lap' - Remove on the lap
• 'one-minute and 12,409 seconds lap' - Replace the , with a .
• 'ahead of López that this distracted him and it allowed Engel to overtake him'. - Modify this part of the sentence to make sense

Post-race

• When we changed strategy, I felt I could stay with the Audis but not be any quicker. They were super quick, both of them. When I saw them carry on and I pitted a lap earlier, that was it. They had a big advantage today in the race." - Missed the " on the start of this quote.

Review

With these few minor spelling errors I think this will be good enough for a good article. @MWright96: Not Homura (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Matt294069: Have done all of the points raised above and some supplementary edits to the article. MWright96 (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• @MWright96: Good job, this is now a Good Article. Not Homura (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Matt294069: The review has not been closed at the talk page and that needs addressing for this to be registered as a good article per WP:GAI. MWright96 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

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.