Talk:Brabham BT46/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. Can the free image be placed in the infobox?
2. The first paragraph of the "Concept" section as well as the "Racing history" section are unsourced.
3. There are two dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It can be - but I don't think there's any GA rule that says it has to be. I'd rather use the team badge for the infobox for consistency with other articles where we don't have a pic of the car. Not sure this one is actionable.
2. Fair point, will fix.
3. Fair point, will fix.

Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I'd argue against this, as the image isn't of the original car - the caption states that it is a "fan car".

Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not the original configuration, or the one most commonly used, certainly. On the other hand, probably the best known variant. 4u1e (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Progress report: two broken refs removed, some progress made in adding refs - not done yet. Happy to leave for longer? 4u1e (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So put we the image to box or logo? the page seems quite "orphan" without any image at the upper part of the page --Typ932 ^T·C 12:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd prefer the logo. But I doubt that really accords with Wiki rules - logos aren't free use images and are arguably being used for decoration. So I guess the pic of the car should go in the infobox. I just don't think it looks great like that. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this, currently visiting family with slower internet. As some progress has been made, I'll leave the article on hold for another week. The image doesn't have to be added to the infobox, I just figured it would be better to have something for the readers to see when they first look at the article. The caption could mention it is a fan car if that's the issue. The main issue is addressing the unsourced areas, so once that's taken care of I can pass the review. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. I'm happy for the image to go in the infobox, but for some reason (sleep deprivation most likely!) I can't seem to make it work. Probably does need a caption to point out that it's the B version with the fan. If anyone whose brain is in better shape can sort it out, that'd be great. 4u1e (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Typ932 for fixing that. Concept section revised and ref'd. 4u1e (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your patience over addressing the issues here. As always, there's loads more that could be done to improve the article... 4u1e (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)