From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 Rockingham 500/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply


I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR  15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the 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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "Bräck, the season points leader heading into the race was awarded the pole position" - might read better with em dashes, but feel free to ignore...
     Done MWright96 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    "The race was due to be held over 210 laps originally but was reduced to 168" - is there a given reason?
    It was the event's schedule had to be compacted because of the problems in the previous two days MWright96 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    " and was held on 22 September at the Rockingham Motor Speedway in Corby, Northamptonshire, England, United Kingdom" - too many. I would personally just write "Corby, Northamptonshire", but I'll leave it up to you
    I've removed United Kingdom from the sentence. MWright96 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    "Kniefel had reduced the number of laps to be run from 168 to 140 because of the danger from fading sunlight" - this could be mentioned in the lead also
     Done MWright96 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This meets the GA criteria as it is. Couldn't find anything wrong with it! JAG UAR  21:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 Rockingham 500/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply


I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR  15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the 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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "Bräck, the season points leader heading into the race was awarded the pole position" - might read better with em dashes, but feel free to ignore...
     Done MWright96 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    "The race was due to be held over 210 laps originally but was reduced to 168" - is there a given reason?
    It was the event's schedule had to be compacted because of the problems in the previous two days MWright96 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    " and was held on 22 September at the Rockingham Motor Speedway in Corby, Northamptonshire, England, United Kingdom" - too many. I would personally just write "Corby, Northamptonshire", but I'll leave it up to you
    I've removed United Kingdom from the sentence. MWright96 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
    "Kniefel had reduced the number of laps to be run from 168 to 140 because of the danger from fading sunlight" - this could be mentioned in the lead also
     Done MWright96 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This meets the GA criteria as it is. Couldn't find anything wrong with it! JAG UAR  21:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook