Talk:1995 European Grand Prix/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A good article is—

  1. Well written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. 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;[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

It is stable.

The images are OK - though the images of Coulthard and Schumacher are not from the race, and are not strictly essential. Questionable value. Looks like they are there just to pretty up the article. Shame there are no action shots from the actual race. Has Flickr been searched?

Prose is clear and spelling accurate. There's a one paragraph sentence in the first paragraph and the lead might be a little short, and not giving enough details about the background to the drivers and constructors position in the championship.

I've not yet examined the cites, but this appears to be well sourced.

Coverage is appropriate for the topic, and appears to cover most aspects.

I'll examine more closely for neutrality - but first examination is that this is fine.

I think this will be OK. SilkTork *YES! 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Flickr doesn't have any images from the event (probably due to the fact it was 14 years ago!) hence why I've gone for those images. They're not exactly spectacular, but its something as they prefer images once at FAC!
I think the lead is fine myself, I do mention the Drivers' positions, but I don't want to go too in-depth as the lead is only like a "summary".
Thanks for the comments. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll get around to making the minor adjustments myself as soon as I can. Certainly within the next 7 days. There's nothing really significant, so it's easier to just do them. SilkTork *YES! 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Just that I was hoping to take it to FAC soonish, i.e. next 4/5 days.... D.M.N. (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will get around to it, but if you want it done quicker then you could do it yourself, as it's not much that needs doing. The lead needs to be a fuller summary than it is at present. See 2008 Turkish Grand Prix and 2008 Spanish Grand Prix that I have recently passed as GA. And this sentence "The race marked the return to the Formula One calendar for the Nürburgring track after being off the calendar since the 1985 season." could be expanded to give some detail behind why Nürburgring was dropped and then returned to the circuit. And some mention of the influence of the popularity of Michael Schumacher on the decision to hold two Grands Prix in Germany might be useful if refs could be found, but is only a thought - and might be speculative (haven't looked into it myself). SilkTork *YES! 10:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Last time I noticed was that this is a GAN Review - i.e. reviewer reviews article against the GA criteria, not for the reviewer to implement changes himself. Is there something I'm misunderstanding here - GA reviews consist of said reviewer reviewing against said criteria so it can either pass/fail against the criterion. D.M.N. (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you are in deed misunderstanding something. The WP:GAN reviewer is not required to complete the review within a timescale dictated by you, inorder to meet your timetable for submitting the article to WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone started a review on the 15th I was then expecting some kind of review.... all that's happened is a few comments; no proper constructive review in the 9 days since apart from the odd comment. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
One interpretation is that it is at or near GA-class and that it only needs a few "tweeks" to pass (and that is what the reviewer seems to say above); but if you are only interested in submitting to WP:FAC in 4/5 days, I suggest you go for WP:PR. I don't do FAC's, but I would suggest that whilst this might be a GA-class article, its not an FA-class article. P.S. I don't intend to do a WP:GAN on it, this is based on a one-minute scan; and you might not get a WP:PR in 4/5 days anyway.Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see this conversation is now in two places. I copy over my comments from Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Question..._.28a_bit_confused.29:

The situation is that I reviewed three F1 articles at the same time. I made similar suggestions on all three. The nominators on 2008 Turkish Grand Prix and 2008 Spanish Grand Prix carried out the suggestions and the articles were passed GA. D.M.N. decided not to make the suggested changes. As improvements on 1995 European Grand Prix were not happening I offered to do the work myself. Where I make significant changes, so much that my role as reviewer is compromised, I withdraw. As I did with Kraków. My intention on Kraków is to assist with the editing to bring it to standard, and allow it to be nominated for GA and reviewed by someone else. I would have made a judgement at the end of editing 1995 European Grand Prix if my role as reviewer would have been comprised and if so I would have withdrawn as with Kraków. I am unclear as to why D.M.N. is not assisting and working with me on this review. The work involved doesn't appear to be too much. We now have an impasse. D.M.N. is unwilling to do the work and D.M.N. doesn't want me to do the work. The nature of GANs is that sometimes they are quick and sometimes they are slow. They take the speed they need. They would, of course, move faster if suggested improvements were carried out. Suggested courses of action now are:

a) Time given for the suggested improvements to be carried out by D.M.N., or decent reasons given for unwillingness to do so. "I think the lead is fine myself" is understood. I wouldn't expect an article to be nominated for GA unless the person nominating felt it was fine. The idea of a GAN is for an independent eye to look over the article and pick out those items that a nominator may have missed.

b) The suggested improvements are carried out by myself. Judgment given after that editing to see if the amount of work has compromised my position as reviewer. It is worth noting that "Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review." I've never had a problem with assisting editors to bring an article to GA status by helping out with editing. This assistance has previously been welcomed. If in doubt, discuss, where obvious, correct.

c) Time given for the suggested improvements to be carried out by somebody else.

d) The review to be taken over by somebody else as the nominator is unwilling to work with me.

e) The GAN to be failed as the article doesn't meet GA criteria and no improvements are being made to bring it to standard.

I'll accept any of the above. Or a new solution. SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[1] - hopefully this is OK. D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is working. As nobody has stepped forward to to take over, and as no real progress is being made on the issues I raised, and the nominator has made it clear that he feels uncomfortable with me doing the work myself, I will close this as a fail. The nominator will then be free to relist it, or call for a GAR. Given that the nominator is keen for speed, a relisting may produce a faster result as a GAR can drag on.

1a The prose is clear, however there is a single sentence paragraph in the first section. 1b The lead fails per Wikipedia:Lead section - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Look at the contents of the article and ensure that a brief summary of the major sections are included in the lead. Example - details from the background section and the practise session could be brought into the lead.

2. Article is sourced.

3 More coverage on selection of the Nürburgring track would be useful. This sentence: "The race marked the return to the Formula One calendar for the Nürburgring track after being off the calendar since the 1985 season." raises more questions than it answers. Fail for not addressing the main aspects of the topic. The track is a main aspect.

4 Article is neutral.

5 Article is stable.

6 Images are questionable as they are not of the event. However, they are captioned so as not to confuse the reader. Not a fail, but a discussion point.

1995 European Grand Prix has not met the criteria for GA. SilkTork *YES! 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that these are small issues that could be fixed with less than an hour's work. If I hadn't been so busy at the moment with a range of other Wiki issues I would have done it myself. I suggest that D.M.N. attends to the suggestions and relists. SilkTork *YES! 10:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite frankly pissed off that the article has been failed. The event is in 1995 there is nothing at all I can do if there are no free-use images available - this has NEVER been an issue on current FA's 1995 Pacific Grand Prix and 1995 Japanese Grand Prix so why an issue now? I've added a little bit on the Nurburgring - but the main body of info regarding that issue does not belong in this article; this article concentrates on the race weekend; it doesn't really concentrate on the past history. The lead DOES have an overview of the weekend - it doesn't need to contain practice details they in the greater scheme of things are not important and thus are not in the lead. I'm shocked this article has been failed. D.M.N. (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)