Talk:2001 Italian Grand Prix/GA1

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

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I will start to review this article soon.  333-blue  11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Some of "-" needs to be changed into "–" in references (also called "in-line citations").
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * It looks OK.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Yes, of course.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Relieable, from the F1 website.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * But add more in-depth third-party sources will be better.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * , "the third person" said that it is OK.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Yes, all about the race.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Less unnecessary detail/details.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Yes, pretty fair.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable, only article expanding in the most recent edits.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * It looks OK.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Of course, they are about the race.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Only a few problems needed to be solved, others are fine!
 * I've taken action on the copyvio source and hoped it's less of a problem. Z105space (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Still 67.2%.  333-blue  13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's odd, and yet I have removed the source from the page. I strongly suggest that the speedy deletion be dropped. Z105space (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be fairer to just let an admin to decide it.  333-blue  13:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The short dashes have been replaced with longer ones where possible. Z105space (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yap, the only problems are solved, this article is passed.  333-blue  09:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)