Talk:Jenson Button/GA1

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

Reviewer: NASCARfan0548 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Let's do this! This is my first GA I have reviewed, so this may be wrong, but I'll try my best.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  02:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) References: Refs 106, 128, and 179 are missing URLs.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  02:51, 27 November 2020 (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:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Added MWright96 (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm wrong, but the article looks good! Putting it on hold until someone experienced can check.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  17:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the review should go into depth since it will be perceived as hurried. MWright96 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the GA review process isn't just about reviewing the article for the GA criteria. It's about making suggestions to improve the article. And you need to write something more specific that demonstrates you have in fact read the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * MWright96 has a lot of GAs, so I would almost certainly expect this one to pass with minimal changes. But there must be something you can suggest. Are there any grammar mistakes? Do all of the links work? Did you understand everything in the article? Is there any context that could be added or clarified? It's okay if you make a suggestion about something that's actually already fine, as the nominator does not necessarily have to follow your suggestion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is another review on a similar driver article if you want to see an example review: Talk:Nico Rosberg/GA1. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry about that, this is my first time reviewing, and even after I read the criteria, I still can't figure out everything.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  03:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's okay, do you have any questions about the review process? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, is this ready for GA? I'm not in a hurry, just wanted to ask.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  03:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the status of this review? Also, you have not updated the status in the review of Button's main talk page per WP:GAN/I. MWright96 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I was asleep, I don't know yet.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  18:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'm afraid that if you're concerned about doing reviews then it is for the best not to open one until you've become acquainted with the relevant process and guidelines. Please consider this for the future. It has been almost two months since the review was opened MWright96 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

either finalise a review here or decide that you cannot so another reviewer can pick it up. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'll stop here and let another reviewer do this. Do I still get credit for starting the GA?  NASCARfan0548  ↗  21:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)