Talk:2016 Australian Grand Prix/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 01:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well, for my fellow Wiki Cup competitor. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 01:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * WP:LEAD - article this size should have a 3-4 paragraph lead


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * No concerns ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * No issues ✅

Well Written

 * Lead
 * "accident between Fernando", i would use "involving" instead of "between"


 * "finish, after" does not need the comma


 * Regulation changes
 * I had to read the source to really understand the elimination rule in the first sentence, perhaps you could clarify in the article?
 * Is it more understandable now? This is really tough, no wonder this format sucks balls... everything in sports that you cannot explain to someone in 5 sentences is bullocks... I did not want to go into too much detail about the format here, since I felt that was what the qualifying section is for. Maybe now it is a good compromise?


 * "and one the third part of qualifying" there is something I am missing because I don't get this sentence.
 * ✅ This was poorly phrased indeed.


 * Free practice
 * what does "flat-spotted" mean?
 * ✅ Wikilinked.


 * "Both Renault and Williams drivers did not set a time" how about "Neither Renault nor Williams drivers set a time"?


 * "Both Sauber" sounds better if starting with "The Sauber"


 * "dried at the start" should be "dried by the start"


 * "with fourth" should be "with a fourth"
 * I actually feel it is more precise here. A fourth place makes it sound like there was more than one fourth place...?


 * Qualifying
 * Now there is the explanation I was needing earlier.
 * "position, and" does not need the comma


 * Post-qualifying
 * "criticism, but" does not need a comma


 * Race
 * "fifth placed" should be "fifth-placed"


 * First paragraph is totally unsourced? In fact most of this section is unsourced??


 * Is "on pole position" the correct usage? I would gave thought "in pole position"
 * You are correct, it is "in".


 * "rounded up" I believe the phrase is "rounded out"?

Tables

 * Shame they don't sort - is that standard in F1 articles?
 * Why should a result table be sorted in any other way than by the result itself?


 * what is the "107% time"?
 * ✅ Wikilinked

Sources/verifiable

 * Looking at the sources, is F1Fanatic considered a reliable source?
 * Everything else is looking good, reliable, formatted well.

Broad in coverage

 * Yep ✅

Neutral

 * Yes ✅

Stable

 * Yep ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * Not sure about the course graphics - it's not an official source but made by "some guy" basically - how do we know that's an accurate depiction?
 * That is a good question, and we have had some problems with those maps in the past (and actually have right now with the Bahrain map since it gives a wrong circuit length). It is unfortunate that the author of this map does not give a source material for his map, I guess he took it from some map service like Google? I don't know. Generally, these maps are accepted as they are in the race report articles and the article would be much less without it... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The rest are all good and I must say high quality shots, ✅

- that's what I got, not a ton of issues. Holding for improvements to be made, seven days unless you think you need more time?  MPJ  -US 03:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! Bear with me when it comes to taking on the other one you did, I do not have too much time atm. As for QPQ on your articles and lists, I will try to look at them, but unfortunately I am neither good with FLCs nor with wrestling... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries about the FLC etc., it's not everyone's cup of tea, which is why I try to spread the word and if i get one in five reply I am happy. The other GA has just a few grammatical challenges - I could even be bold and just fix them.  MPJ  -US 23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead a little bit more to have it reflect the major points in the article. However, I don't believe that it warrants a full 3-4 paragraph lead, since the lead would then list too much trivial information. I hope this resolves the issues to get this to GA? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * looking at the article, the "readable prose" part is 18K, the tabels etc drive up the overall article size. Looking at the lead i think it truely covers it. I will reae through it one last time to.check.  MPJ  -US 15:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * passed - great work.  MPJ  -US 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I hope that over the weekend, I will at least find some more time to review GA Cup scores, I was forced to neglect that duty too much as well... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)