Jump to content

Talk:2017 Paris ePrix/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Quick fail criteria assessment

[edit]
  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    • — sourced.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    • — neutral.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    • — no banners or tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    • — no edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    • — subject is very complete.

Main review

[edit]

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

Infobox

Lead

Background

"stood in fifth place on 34 points ... on 115 points" — "on" sounds odd, suggest "with" instead.

"e.Dams-Renault were leading ... Audi Sport ABT were" — were, or was?

"e.Dams-Renault and Buemi had dominated the championship..." — I suggest putting this, and everything in the paragraph that follows it, at the beginning of the paragraph. It's more general than the specific points standings, and thus is better as an intro to the standings.

  • "podium finish, "It's a..." — you need an introduction to the quotation, e.g., "podium finish, saying "It's a..."
  • "José María López felt his team were" (and throughout the paragraph, and in "Post-race") — you can't know what López felt, you can only know what he said he felt (particularly apt here, when it's drivers rattling off sports clichés).

Practice and qualifying

Race

Post-race

Classification

Notes

b (MoS):

— Appears compliant. A few minor issues (e.g., en dashes) are dealt with above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

— Everything appears accurate and verifiable.

b (citations to reliable sources):

— Sources all appear reliable.

c (OR):

— No evidence of OR seen.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations): Copying appears confined to attributed quotations.

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

— Major aspects (pre/during/post) and context are covered.

b (focused):

— Article is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy — Article is neutral. However, as noticed in the prose points, you can't know what somebody felt or believed—you can only know what they said they felt or believed.

5. It is stable — Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

— Images are tagged and appear appropriately licensed.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

— Images are captioned, but can we get alt text for them?

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

This Looks great MWright96, and will have no problems passing. There are many prose suggestions, but they're quite minor ; if you disagree with them, just say so. Other than that, just looking for some rephrasing regarding point of view, and for alt text accompanying the images. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]