Talk:2000 Italian Grand Prix/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 10:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

On it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Once again, this is a very detailed article on a race of the 2000 Formula One season. The following things should be sorted out:
 * Lead: The first sentence of the last pragraph is too complicatetely phrased. Something simpler would be: Schumchaer reduced Häkkinen's lead in the Drivers' Championship to two points. Same goes for the same sentence in the Post-race section.
 * Background: Apart from being a false title, "Championship competitor Giancarlo Fisichella" sounds to me like he is still in the running for the Championship.
 * Renamed "Championship competitor" to Benetton driver
 * As per consensus of the F1 Wikiproject, the last paragraph of the Background section should be removed and moved to 2001 Formula One season.
 * Practice and qualifying: To me, the prose focuses to much on mere results and too little on what was actually happening. There are more information in the sources that can be used to pep up the prose, like quotes. Also, some things are missing, like Mazzacane spinning out during second practice.
 * I have added some more statements
 * Race: You should switch the order of the race weather and the warm-up sentences. It makes more sense to first write about warm-up and then speak about the weather for the race.
 * Race: Button was not the second retirement of the race.
 * Indeed he was not. I have corrected to say he was the seventh retirement.
 * At different points of the article, I don't quite understand what you mean by "Prima Variante" and "Seconda Variante" chicanes. Are those Goodyear and della Roggia respectively? If so, you should rename them to have it match the circuit map, otherwise it is confusing. Also, the part about Zonta and Verstappen in the race report becomes confusing by this: Zonta tries to overtake Verstappen into the Seconda Variante. Is that della Roggia? If so, then why do you write he tries it again at turn three, which is della Roggia!? Or is that a lap later? I simply don't understand this, the part definitely needs to be clarified!
 * Race, fourth paragraph: I guess that Schumacher did not extend his lead by 5.4 seconds but rather to 5.4 seconds?
 * Post-race: Ralf Schumacher said he did not worry about Verstappen and Zonta challenging him because of the Williams driver's quick pace. That sounds like Ralf is talking about himself in the third person, which sounds strange.
 * Reworded this sentence slightly
 * I felt that the problem was still there, so I rephrased it a little more. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-race, second paragraph: The first sentence needs a reference, if you want to phrase it so drastically. I don't doubt that the podium was overshadowed by the accident, but you cannot just claim so.
 * Removed this statement
 * Same goes for the statement that the Race directors were critisized for not stopping the race. I cannot find anything about that in the sources provided.
 * Statement has been removed
 * I felt that the problem was still there, so I rephrased it a little more. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-race, second paragraph: The first sentence needs a reference, if you want to phrase it so drastically. I don't doubt that the podium was overshadowed by the accident, but you cannot just claim so.
 * Removed this statement
 * Same goes for the statement that the Race directors were critisized for not stopping the race. I cannot find anything about that in the sources provided.
 * Statement has been removed

That's it, great work so far! You have the usual seven days to adress the issues. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I have dealt with all of the points you have raised. Thank you for the review. Z105space (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done, another well deserved pass :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)