Talk:2011 Bahrain Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 05:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. Please inform me regarding any problems. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section-wise Assessment

After an initial review, the article looks very good. All sources are fine, prose is clear, and article is stable. Though it is short and lacks good images (considering the nature of the article), it is fine. Anyways, I'll be doing a proper review below. There will be some important corrections needed.

Lead Section

'On 3 June, it was announced that the race would be held on 30 October, thus making it round 17 of the 20 to be held during 2011.' Could this sentence be made more clear?
- Re-worded by User:HumanBodyPiloter5 (Special:Diff/1064071135). SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sumarizes the further content, which have the required citations. So citations are not needed here. It is clear, consise, and very well-written.

Postponment

'Ecclestone stated that....' It would not be necessary to link the protests again, for it has already been done before and is understood.
- Resolved. (Special:Diff/1064261698) SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, the section is fine

Provisional reinstatement and cancellation

I made a small grammatical correction (added a comma)
I feel this section can be broken into a couple of paragraphs.
- This section is now over 4 paragraphs rather than just the two. (Special:Diff/1064261698) SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold For Improvements

@SSSB, This article is put On hold for a time period of 3 days. Please help make the required improvements, after which a decision can be taken. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpddg: Thank you for taking this on. I think I've addressed all the concerns you raised. SSSB (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Decision

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.	Yes, it is clear, concise, precise, and well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	👍
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.	All statements are backed by reliable sources.
	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).	The sources are accurate and reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	👍
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused and to-the-point
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is written from a neutral perspective
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable
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.	Images have no issues
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is Passed.

Thanks SSSB for your contributions. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpddg: thank you for the speedy review! SSSB (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]