Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have made a number of minor changes. What remains is:

Infobox

Have added two Citation needed templates here.
- Removed the 30,000 attendance figures as a Google search indicates that they are from 2009 and replaced with air and track temperatures from prose. MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

You need to explain and source what the F-duct is.
- Done. MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"inconsistency and it was difficult to work" - this sentence sounds weird and should be rephrased.
- Rephrased. MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race

No layman will understand what is meant with "front end of the car", rephrase to make it more accessable.
- I've removed some parts of the sentence. MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same applies to "into clean air".
- Wikilinked to Glossary of motorsport terms. MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"flurry" is not really an encyclopedic term.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is "leapfrog".
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the paragraph, you mention that Webber stays ahead of Hamilton, but forget to say that Vettel overtook Hamilton through the pitstops as well. It's in the lead, but missing here, where the info is more importannt.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The latter had been backed up by his view by race engineer" - I do not really understand this sentence. Please rephrase.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-race

"Webber [...] had expected it to be honest" - ìn the press conference, he clearly says "I expected it to be an interesting race, to be honest". He does not say he expected the race to be honest, which would not have made any sense. So please rephrase this here.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entire standings after the race section is far too similar to the one in the lead. I would recommend to cut down much of what is in the lead since it is a little too detailed. Also, writing that Webber extended his lead over Button is misleading, since obviously his advantage over Button was reduced, but Button moved up into second. Rephrase both in the lead and in the post-race section to reflect that.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence should be moved into the second paragraph of this section, where the incident is dealt with. Also, the "rivalry" between Webber and Vettel needs some context, since an uninformed reader will not know that they even had one.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Di Grassi's pit lane start needs to be reflected in both tables, with a note and a source. See your recently reviewed 2016 Austrian Grand Prix on how that is done.
- Done MWright96 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

That's what I found. Good work so far! I'll put the review on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]