Talk:2021 World Rally Championship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've made a large prose edit, removing a fair bit of text to keep to summary style. There were also a number of grammatical issues, and I can't be sure I've caught them all - please do a thorough sweep and recheck for any English grammar issues, especially verb tense and singular-plural noun-verb matching. If you have any issues with my removals of text, just let me know here and we can discuss. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Heavy reliance on Speedcafe, Dirtfish, Autosport.com, and wrc.com. The first three are likely ok based on what I've found out, but wrc.com has a vested interest in promoting the sport, and the use of it for very high levels of detail comes across as non-neutral. It leads to the article being geared towards fans of the sport rather than being presented for a general encyclopedic reader. I will comment on this in more detail under focus. Pass (see discussion below).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See prose review for comments - removed a fair amount of material. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No notable neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	A little bit of recent work but nothing that would prevent general stability. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	A large number of images with a wide variety of copyright statuses from CC0 to Public Domain. One non-copyrighted but trademarked logo, appropriately labeled. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	For so many images, there were actually no caption issues. Well-balanced and well-chosen selection. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Unnamelessness:, I've completed my first run-through of the GA review. Thank you for your patience. Take a look and please make any comments / edits accordingly - this article is close to GA and I'm sure we can get there together. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Seems good after a brief check, but I do have a little problem with the prose-reduction. I do have a feeling the prose is concise, especially the dramatic Safari round, maybe too concise though... I added a little bit of contents to make it a bit more focus. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's fine, between us we can find the right balance. Are you done with your revisions (i.e. should I take another look now or wait?). Also, any comment on the 2b issue? Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Free feel to review the current version. Regarding the 2b issue, I don't really think wrc.com is that "vested interest in promotion". As long as stating facts, it should be fine. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think we're in a place that this article can pass GA. It's not perfect, and I generally disagree on the reliance on wrc.com, but GA articles don't have to be perfect and the standard is not as high as FA. Congratulations to you and anyone else who worked on it! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Appreciate. I will continue to improve the article when I am not so busy someday. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)