Talk:Porsche RS Spyder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Porsche RS Spyder has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.
February 27, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

Racing car template[edit]

I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 09:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

B Class Review[edit]

The article by all means deserves a B class designation. It meets all six criteria. I'd love to recommend it for good article status actually but I worry it may still be a bit to short to truly qualify. Perhaps expanding on which races it actually won during its championship stints in ALMS is a suggestion. --Sabre ball t c 12:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the same thing and I do have a list of all it's victories so I will do that. Thanks for the review. Bjmullan (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Porsche RS Spyder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 22:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this article as soon as I can.--Dom497 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Quality of article is very good.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Good, references added to the list.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Checked reference and everything looks good.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Every statement has at least one reference.
    C. No original research:
    No original research found.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article content covers all important/major content about the car.
    B. Focused:
    Article always stays on topic.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias found.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Doesn't seem to be any edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Images are all tagged and licensed properly.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    All images have to do with the topic and are used fairly well.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am putting this article on hold for 1 week for improvements to the article to be made (see below). If more time is need, please contact me to let me know and I may add a few more days to improve the article.--Dom497 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Article has now met all GA criteria.--Dom497 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some things that you may want to fix before I finish the review (more things may be added):

- The first paragraph in the "Design" section of the article...there is no reference. I thought it was original research but as I read on I figured out that the reference in the second paragraph of the section also supported the first. Just so its easier for other readers to understand this, please add the the same reference (reference #2) to the first paragraph. UPDATE: I have fixed this for you.--Dom497 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

- The paragraph in the sub-topic "2007", reference #6 does not support all the info in the paragraph. Therefore, that info can easily be considered original research. In the same paragraph the statement after reference #6, "Penske had also taken eleven class victories from twelve races", is not supported by any reference which also makes it easy to consider it original research.

Done. Bjmullan (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

-Again, the first paragraph in the sub-topic "2008". reference # 7 doesn't support all the info presented.

Done. Bjmullan (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

-In the sub-topic "2009", "New restrictor rules brought the RS Spyder's power down to 440 bhp, and the wingspan was limited by the rules, effectively decreasing downforce", is not supported by a reference.

I was able to find a reference to atleast support the currently striked out portion. --Sabre ball t c 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Um....that reference doesn't seem to be working....--Dom497 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The link works now!!!--Dom497 (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. Bjmullan (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

- In the sub-topic "2010", "No RS Spyder's were entered in the 2010 24 Hours of Le Mans. The 2011 LMP2 regulations rendered the RS Spyder obsolete due to the costs exceeding the LMP2 budget limit", is not supported by a reference.

I found a reputable source and cited this. --Sabre ball t c 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

-In the topic "Race victories", there is not one reference in the entire topic!!!

Done. Bjmullan (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion: After going through the article, what I mentioned above is everything that needs to be fixed and then the article may pass. My suggestion is that if you can't find references for the content that is not cited...delete from the article or else it will not meet GA criteria and fail. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All suggestions have been fixed...pass!--Dom497 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Dom497 for the review and the pass :) Bjmullan (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)