Talk:2016 Baku GP2 Series round/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR   17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found.

Checking against GA criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written, complies with key MoS elements.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well referenced to reliable sources, no evidence of OR. Spotchecks show that online sources support statements, assumme good faith for off-line sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Excellent coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Suitable images, licensed and captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I don't like quick passing articles and it might look like I'm not doing my job, but please believe me when I say that I think these articles are flawless. I spent my time reading this one and couldn't find anything to point out, so it meets the criteria. Well done! JAG UAR   12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)