Talk:2000 Canadian Grand Prix/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nascarking (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I can't find any fault with this article. It's very well written and has no inconsistency with number usage. I hereby give 2000 Canadian Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.-- Nascar   king  22:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I can't find any fault with this article. It's very well written and has no inconsistency with number usage. I hereby give 2000 Canadian Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.-- Nascar   king  22:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find any fault with this article. It's very well written and has no inconsistency with number usage. I hereby give 2000 Canadian Grand Prix a pass. It's now a Good Article.-- Nascar   king  22:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)