Talk:2017 FIA GT World Cup

2017 FIA GT World Cup has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 5, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 FIA GT World Cup article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Macau Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Motorsport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sports Car Racing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 FIA GT World Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 16:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contains copyright infringements - is clean, images are tagged well. Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - I couldn't find any in the text on first inspection Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No edit warring Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

no dablinks Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One dead link requires tagging or archiving Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

The 2017 FIA GT World Cup (formally the SJM Macau GT Cup – FIA GT World Cup) - When you say formerly, when was this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mercedes-AMG Team Driving Academy - Is this an official name? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the official name of the team. MWright96 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ideal, just checking it's a proper noun. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
looking through the article, there's a bit about post race, and an automated warning system. This seems like it could be added to the lede in some way? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Only mentions of any changes of championship position (teams'/constructors' and drivers') or the disqualification of the race winner through a technical infringement or a sporting infraction is deemed necessary to be inserted in the lede, not matters such as the lobbying for a system that is not likely to be implemented into motor racing. MWright96 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense, I wasn't sure what contributed to a full summary for racing articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
overall, lede is well written. :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entry List

This section feels a little long for one paragraph - Can it not be split? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are the silver and bronze licenses really notable topics? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with the wording surrounding the restrictions. The events were restricted to just people with platinum and gold licenses, however silvers were also sometimes allowed? Perhaps re-word to say that the event was restricted by license, and then list what licenses were allowed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a list of what accomplishments the field had won? Prior years champions and world champions should suffice Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed only one driver because his series is lesser known. MWright96 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

As the link for Laurens Vanthoor was in another section, it may be wise to either re-link him in this section, or state his full name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what are TecPro barriers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Pommer pirouetted 360 degrees at more than 250 km/h (160 mph) on the kerb at the inside of Mandarin Bend corner but he narrowly avoided striking the wall beside the track." - This comes out of nowhere. did they not stop the session for this accident? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Solitude Esses" - I'm guessing this is part of the track? As there isn't a list of corners in the article, it may be an idea to put this in brackets next to this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a whole, this section is very well put together, and well cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying & main race

Not really an issue with the article, but it's quite confusing that there is both qualifying, and a qualifying race. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"tightly-packed field could avoid due to a lack of reaction time" - The references make it seem like this was more of an opinion, rather than fact. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, well written. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big fan of the quote being on the left, but I suppose that's personal preference. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

references are well layed out Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notes are cited well Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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:

Comments

I'll most likely do a little bit today, and follow up with the rest of this review tomorrow. I used to be a bit of a formula 1 fan, but haven't seen a race for over 10 years, so if anything I raise is usual, please bare with me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm going to go ahead and pass this GA. The above is some really nit-picky stuff that I saw, but nothing that stops the article from meeting the GA criteria above, so feel free to completely ignore the above; however, if any of it is useful, feel free to use it to improve the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...The accident involved four uninvolved drivers..."

As a reader, this makes no sense to me: definitionally, I don't understand how an "uninvolved" driver can be said to be "involved" (or vice versa). I would fix it, but I don't understand what it's actually trying to say! Aawood (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]