The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article as I feel the article matches the current FA-criterion. Although the article recently failed a GA-nomination (due to misunderstandings between me and the reviewer), I have improved the article further based on peer review comments by Apterygial ( talk · contribs). I believe the article meets the sources and images criterion within the FA-criteria. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments – First off, I'm surprised to see an article that recently failed GAN make such a quick appearance at FAC. I don't see what's wrong with the photos (free images from a 1995 race are unlikely at best now), but I do think the lead should be beefed up as the reviewer suggested to ensure that it covers the entire article. The issue concerning coverage of the track selection seems to have been mostly addressed, although I'm interested to know where the event was held in 1994. Please check that the references use things such as en dashes for page ranges (ref 44) and italics for printed publications (Autosport; with the work parameter in use, they need to be forced). Will try to do a prose/MoS review later, but it looks like I'm about to be swamped for a while. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
(outdent) Prose review:
I'll look at the race summary later. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The GA fail should not be held against the article. Grand Prix articles make decent articles as they have a discrete and defined place and time, and a workable structure. This was another decent Grand Prix article, apart from the issues with the lead and coverage of the track selection. The fail was simply down to the issues not being dealt with. I see the issues are now being addressed, so the reasons for the GA fail are being dealt with. SilkTork * YES! 12:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article as I feel the article matches the current FA-criterion. Although the article recently failed a GA-nomination (due to misunderstandings between me and the reviewer), I have improved the article further based on peer review comments by Apterygial ( talk · contribs). I believe the article meets the sources and images criterion within the FA-criteria. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments – First off, I'm surprised to see an article that recently failed GAN make such a quick appearance at FAC. I don't see what's wrong with the photos (free images from a 1995 race are unlikely at best now), but I do think the lead should be beefed up as the reviewer suggested to ensure that it covers the entire article. The issue concerning coverage of the track selection seems to have been mostly addressed, although I'm interested to know where the event was held in 1994. Please check that the references use things such as en dashes for page ranges (ref 44) and italics for printed publications (Autosport; with the work parameter in use, they need to be forced). Will try to do a prose/MoS review later, but it looks like I'm about to be swamped for a while. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
(outdent) Prose review:
I'll look at the race summary later. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The GA fail should not be held against the article. Grand Prix articles make decent articles as they have a discrete and defined place and time, and a workable structure. This was another decent Grand Prix article, apart from the issues with the lead and coverage of the track selection. The fail was simply down to the issues not being dealt with. I see the issues are now being addressed, so the reasons for the GA fail are being dealt with. SilkTork * YES! 12:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply