Talk:Dario Franchitti/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 23:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to pick this review up. It may take me a few days to work through it. I like to make copyedits as I go so so please review any changes I make and revert any you disagree with. grungaloo (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I'm finished. Let me know once you've gone through and want me to check it over again. grungaloo (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Have made amendments to the articles based on the points below EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I fixed a few last issues. Congrats on GA! grungaloo (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2024 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Section layout is good, some prose issues. prose is good.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Refs are good, no OR, earwig detects some proper names, no real copyvios.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage, bordering on overdetailed. good level of detail
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Meets NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars, one IP editor seems really intent on adding some unsourced line about him being an art director on the Gran Turismo movie.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images look good and have appropriate licenses
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Checked refs 5,12,13,17,19,25,34,36,37,130,135,137, all good.
 * When mentioning races, I don't think both the race and the circuit need to be mentioned and wikilinked (e.g. ARCA Re/Max Series, ARCA 200 at Daytona). Looking at other GAs about drivers (Lewis Hamilton, Mario Andretti), these both pare down those details.
 * Similarly, the exact car he drove is mentioned quite a bit (e.g. No. 055 HPD ARx-03b-Honda-LMP2). These are hard to parse and make reading this more difficult. I would suggest removing them for clarity unless there is something unique Franchitti's relationship to the car that's worth mentioning.
 * - Unless you're naming a specific tourist board it doesn't need to be capitalized.
 * - sounds odd tacked onto the end, suggest splitting it to it's own sentence.
 * - Since you just listed all his extended family this can be interpreted to mean all of them moved to Whitburn. I would just say he moved when he was eight, I think the family part is implied.
 * - Is fee-paying a common term? Suggest using "private" instead.
 * - This doesn't make sense, "and he was taught cricket and rugby union"? Also I don't think the part about fitness is needed.
 * - I would add a gloss for tested so it can be broadly understood.
 * - I would drop the 20k prize since the award is the award itself, it just also come with the money. If you want to keep it, I would list it after "which included..."
 * - "before a deadline" sounds odd, I would drop it. It's not clear what this deadline was or why it's important.
 * - Do the features need to be listed? Other vehicle descriptions have been pretty basic, I would drop the ABS, traction control parts.
 * - Because you last mentioned another driver, "He" should be replaced with Franchitti.
 * - the source says "champ car", CART didn't exist until 1979.
 * - It's not very clear what count-back means, could you add a gloss or try rewording?
 * - same as above, I think this can be clearer how this point scoring worked. Also the last part I would reword to "who had won seven races while Franchitti had only won three".
 * - based on the source, him being more serious is his own thoughts on things that others may not have noticed. I'd avoid using wikivoice and use one of his quotes from the article instead.
 * - What does "pre-season personnel switch" mean here?
 * - I would simplify this, "fractured his lumbar vertebrae".
 * - Who's Gordon? Give the full name.
 * - Were the remaining races all at Nazareth Speedway? If not, this doesn't really make sense and Nazareth Speedway can be dropped.
 * - You've been using " season" for previous years (2004 season, 1998 season, etc), I would not use "championship" here to stay consistent.
 * - This doesn't really match the source. It seems to say his performance decline, and independently of that Penske and CGR were able to catch up thanks to the Honda engine. I would take another pass at this sentence to make that clearer.
 * - Maybe another word that "resigned", could mean quite or signed again. Could say Franchitti again drove for AGR.
 * - "race-high 242 laps"? Missing a word
 * - The championship is the entire season, but you then say "winning the race". Which race was it that caused him to win the championship?
 * - A few issues here, I'd start with the year, and also consider splitting it into two sentences. It also could probably be split, first about the replacement contract and upsetting AGR, then about the sponsorship.
 * - Should be either an em-dash or brackets.
 * - This reads awkwardly, we don't know what the Car of Tomorrow is or why it's important, and not beating other teams - isn't this implied by the fact that he didn't do well? I would take another pass, try simplifying, cut out what you can.
 * - Not clear what a loose car is, add a gloss (out of control?) or drop
 * - Some clarity issues, need add "before the car ricocheted back", otherwise it can be read as the fence or the debris ricocheting back.
 * - I would drop "mental clarity"
 * - It was just stated that he was a coach, so I'm not sure what this adds that's not implied by being a coach. I would drop it.
 * - Since this section is out of sync with the timeline you just went through, I'd lead with the year in the very first sentence (In 1999, Franchittia planned to enter...)
 * - New section, say Franchitti instead of "he"
 * - Is this really noteworthy? I'd drop it, too much detail.